[Senate Hearing 105-851]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 105-851

 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1999

=======================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                before a

                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   on

                           H.R. 4328/S. 2307

 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                               __________

       Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
                      Department of Transportation
                       General Accounting Office
                  National Transportation Safety Board
                       Nondepartmental witnesses
                    Office of Management and Budget
                      Surface Transportation Board

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations


 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                 senate

                                 ______

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-117 cc                   WASHINGTON : 1999

_______________________________________________________________________
            For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 
                                 20402
                           ISBN 0-16-058080-3





                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                     TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington             DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina      BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
                   Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                 Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
               James H. English, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

          Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies

                  RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
SLADE GORTON, Washington             HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina      PATTY MURRAY, Washington
TED STEVENS, Alaska
  ex officio
                           Professional Staff
                             Wally Burnett
                              Reid Cavnar
                             Joyce C. Rose
                        Peter Rogoff (Minority)


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Monday, March 16, 1998
                     appalachian regional corridors

                                                                   Page
Congressional witnesses..........................................     1
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 1, 25
Material submitted subsequent to conclusion of hearing...........    53

                        Thursday, March 19, 1998
           department of transportation major funding issues

Department of Transportation:
    Secretary of Transportation..................................    57
    Federal Aviation Administration..............................    99
    U.S. Coast Guard.............................................    99

                        Tuesday, March 24, 1998
            amtrak's future and passenger rail alternatives

Congressional witnesses..........................................   197
General Accounting Office........................................   217
Department of Transportation: Office of Inspector General........   217
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   251
Office of Management and Budget..................................   303
Material submitted subsequent to conclusion of hearing...........   321

    Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing for Formal Hearings

Department of Transportation:
    Federal Highway Administration...............................   325
    Federal Railroad Administration..............................   456
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............   607
    Research and Special Programs Administration.................   707
    St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation..................   802
Related agencies:
    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board...   817
    National Transportation Safety Board.........................   828
    Surface Transportation Board.................................   834
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   859
  


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1999

                              ----------                              


                         MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1998

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Birmingham, AL.
    The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m. at ``Great Hall'', Hill 
University Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 
Birmingham, AL, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Shelby.

                     APPALACHIAN REGIONAL CORRIDORS

                                Panel 1

                        CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES

STATEMENTS OF:
        HON. ROBERT ADERHOLT, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA
        HON. SPENCER BACHUS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA

                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENTS OF:
        JESSE L. WHITE, JR., FEDERAL COCHAIRMAN, APPALACHIAN REGIONAL 
            COMMISSION
        DON VAUGHN, ASSISTANT TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, ALABAMA 
            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
    At this time, I would like to recognize Dr. William Deal 
the dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Alabama 
in Birmingham, for any remarks that he might care to make.
    Thank you, Doctor Deal.
    Dr. Deal. Thank you, Senator.
    On behalf of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and 
its 30,000 students, faculty, and staff members, I would like 
to welcome you, Senator, and this subcommittee to this campus. 
Senator Shelby has been very instrumental and supportive of the 
development of this campus since he was elected to Congress in 
1979 and we are very grateful for that. He, along with 
Congressmen Bachus and Aderholt, have helped us and are fully 
supportive of the School of Medicine and our human genetics 
initiative which is well underway.
    Senator Shelby is also the first Alabama Senator to serve 
on the Senate Appropriations Committee since the legendary 
Senate Lister Hill who had so much to do with the development 
of the medical center. We are grateful for your leadership, 
Senator, and again, welcome all of you to this campus. Thank 
you.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Dean.
    I want to thank each of you for being here today as we 
examine the cost and the benefits associated with the 
completion of the Appalachian development highway system, and 
specifically Corridor X.
    Last year, as part of the Transportation appropriations 
bill, this subcommittee provided $300 million of Federal funds 
to the Appalachian highway system. About $40 million of that 
went to the State of Alabama to advance the progress of 
Corridor X. This $40 million was over and above the money the 
State of Alabama received through the Federal-Aid Highway 
Program.
    The reason this money is necessary is to compensate for the 
Federal Government's poor track record in living up to its 
promise to finish this crucial highway system. The Appalachian 
development highway system was created in 1965 with the intent 
of linking the underdeveloped Appalachian region to the 
National Interstate System. Today, 33 years later, we still 
have large segments of the Appalachian highway system which are 
incomplete. One of the largest unfinished sections of the 
system in America is Corridor X here in Alabama.
    When completed, Corridor X will be a 97-mile highway from 
the Mississippi State line to I-65 here in Birmingham. In 
conjunction with other routes in Mississippi, it will provide a 
freeway-type route from Birmingham to Memphis and will 
facilitate trade and economic development in northwest Alabama. 
Not only will it make the movement of goods and people between 
Memphis and Birmingham more efficient, but this highway project 
will also bring much-needed jobs to the region. According to 
the road information program, each $1 billion in new Federal 
highway investment nationwide generates an estimated 1,018 jobs 
in Alabama.
    Completing Corridor X will also provide critical highway 
safety improvements in this area. Anyone who has driven much in 
northwest Alabama knows how dangerous the roads can be, and 
this new highway will do more to improve highway safety than 
any other project in recent memory. Highway fatalities in 
Alabama increased by 11 percent from 1992 to 1996. Nationwide, 
77 percent of all fatal crashes occur on two-lane roads while 
only 14 percent of fatal crashes occur on roads with four or 
more lanes. In Alabama, 53 percent of the roads on the National 
Highway System, excluding the Interstate System, are two lanes.
    Automobile accidents not only cost lives but they have 
economic costs as well. Motor vehicle crashes cost Alabama 
citizens about $2 billion per year or $471 for every resident 
of the State for emergency services, medical costs, property 
damages, and lost market productivity. Driving on roads in need 
of repair costs Alabama $394 million a year or $126 per 
motorist in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. 
Increasing the investment in our Nation's highways will help 
change this and improve the lives of all of our citizens.
    The purpose of this hearing today in Birmingham is to gain 
a better understanding of how completing Corridor X and the 
Appalachian highway system as a whole will benefit the people 
of Alabama and other people in Appalachia. Our first witness 
today will be Congressman Robert Aderholt who represents the 
4th District in which most of Corridor X lies.
    Congressman Aderholt is a member of the House 
Appropriations Committee and also is a member of the 
Transportation Subcommittee as well. He worked with me on last 
year's appropriations bill to ensure that the funds for 
Corridor X became a reality, and has effectively used his seat 
on the Appropriations Committee to represent his district.
    Congressman Spencer Bachus who represents most of the 
Birmingham area is our next witness and has also been a staunch 
advocate in Washington for Corridor X. He sits on the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and will continue 
to have a strong voice in the final Federal Highway 
reauthorization bill.
    We will also hear from the Honorable Jesse White, the 
Federal Cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission. The 
ARC is responsible for administering the Appalachian 
development highway system, and we are pleased to have Mr. 
White with us here today in Birmingham.
    The last witness on the first panel is Mr. Don Vaughn, 
Assistant Transportation Director of the Alabama Department of 
Transportation. Mr. Vaughn, along with Director Jimmy Butts, is 
responsible for running the Department of Transportation of the 
State on a daily basis and for setting the State of Alabama's 
priorities for highway construction.
    The second panel today will focus on the economic and 
safety benefits of Corridor X. We will have Mr. William 
Buechner, director of economics and research at the American 
Road & Transportation Builders Association; Mr. Barry Copeland, 
vice president of government affairs at the Birmingham Area 
Chamber of Commerce. He is also the regional director of 
BellSouth Communications. Mr. Frank Filgo, president and CEO of 
Alabama Trucking Association, and Mr. Al Gibbs, director of 
corporate affairs of the Alabama Chapter of the American 
Automobile Association.
    Congressman Aderholt, Congressman Bachus, we welcome you 
here today to join me in this hearing. Your written statements 
will be made part of the record in its entirety.
    Congressman Aderholt, you may proceed as you wish.

                  Statement of Representative Aderholt

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Senator, for having us here today 
and allowing us to speak on the importance of Corridor X. A 
tremendous amount of progress has been made toward the eventual 
completion----
    Senator Shelby. Pull that microphone up closer to you, if 
you would.
    Mr. Aderholt. A tremendous amount of progress has been made 
toward the eventual completion of this project in the past year 
in Washington, and I look forward to the first day when 
Corridor X is open.
    When I was first elected to Congress back in 1996, Corridor 
X was my No. 1 priority. Working with the Alabama congressional 
delegation, the State Department of Transportation, local 
elected officials, and interested citizens in north Alabama, we 
were able to secure the largest general fund appropriation in 
history, $45 million for the current fiscal year, before the 
State match. Working together, we were able to get this done 
and it is something we can certainly all be proud of. However, 
this is just the first step toward the completion of Corridor 
X.
    This year will prove to be the crucial year when a sense of 
fairness is restored to Alabama for transportation funding and 
the necessary resources for the completion of Corridor X are 
secured. Along with the annual preparations process, this year 
Congress, as you know, will reauthorize the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act, also known as ISTEA.
    Congress last authorized ISTEA legislation back in 1991. 
Unfortunately, Alabama did not fare well in that legislation. 
Alabama is a donor State, meaning we pay more in gasoline taxes 
in transportation trust fund than we receive in return for 
transportation infrastructure project. In fact, Alabama has 
only got approximately 78 cents on the dollar since 1991.
    The lack of a sound surface transportation infrastructure 
is harming our ability to compete with other areas in the 
Southeast. Congress has already responded with the largest 
funding for surface transportation in history last year with 
$23.3 billion which is up from $20.9 billion the previous year 
and more than $1 billion over the President's request. And I 
pledge to continue to build on this progress this year.
    Certainly the Alabama congressional delegation has been 
working together to ensure that this does not happen again with 
the reauthorization. Thankfully we are in a much better 
position this time around with members of the Alabama 
delegation being on key committees.
    The No. 1 concern of the delegation is to ensure that 
Alabama does not receive the short end of the stick on the 
overall amount of funding that comes from the Federal 
Government. Certainly as you're well aware, the Senate, last 
week, passed a 6-year reauthorization of ISTEA and the House 
will shortly do the same. What is important to know is that all 
competing long-term reauthorizations are better for Alabama 
than the current law.
    A central issue to ISTEA debate is specific funding 
category for the Appalachian development highway system. 
Historically, the main problem for the Appalachian development 
highway system, which includes Corridor X, has been a stable, 
dedicated source of funding.
    Since the Appalachian development highway system is not 
part of the Interstate Highway System, it is hard to rely on an 
annual appropriations process. This is why, in some years, 
Alabama has had significant levels of funding and other years 
it received very small amounts. This makes it very difficult 
for long-term planning and it is part of the reason that the 
Appalachian development highway system is only 78 percent 
completed while the Interstate Highway System is 99 percent 
completed.
    The House, the Senate, and the President have all decided 
to include a specific funding category for the Appalachian 
development highway system. The real battle seems to be what 
level of funding will be secured in the final version of the 
bill. The President's proposal includes $2.1 billion over 6 
years for the Appalachian development highway system, the House 
proposal includes $2.5 billion and the Senate's proposal has 
$2.2 billion for the Appalachian development highway system.
    The funds for the Appalachian development highway system 
are disbursed by a funding formula based solely on the costs to 
complete the entire system of which Corridor X is one part. 
Alabama's share is 11 percent so under the competing bills, we 
will receive over $200 million before the State match from the 
highway trust fund. This figure does not take into account the 
appropriations process, and as I mentioned earlier, and has 
been mentioned, we worked together last year to secure $45 
million in the Transportation appropriation bill last year. 
Each year we will be in a position to steer additional funds to 
Corridor X on top of the authorized funding from the highway 
trust fund.
    I have discussed the process to complete Corridor X up in 
Washington because I know everyone here understands what is 
important to complete this project. There are two very 
consequential reasons why the highway must be completed now. 
The first is economic development for northwest Alabama, and 
certainly, the second, which is certainly just as important 
and, in my opinion, more important, is safety.
    It is unacceptable omission that there is no Interstate 
Highway from Memphis to Birmingham. This makes it more costly 
for businesses in Birmingham but also has slowed economic 
growth in northwest Alabama. If you look at a map of Alabama, 
the counties that are experiencing surging economic activity 
are generally those with an Interstate Highway running through 
them. Many of the counties in northwest Alabama will be able to 
create more jobs when Corridor X is completed.
    In addition, more businesses will be willing to locate 
along Corridor X in northwest Alabama because the 
transportation infrastructure is sound.
    An equally compelling reason to complete Corridor X is 
safety concerns. The current two-lane route on U.S. 78 is one 
of the most dangerous highways in the Nation. In Marion and 
Walker Counties, we have averaged one death per month over the 
past 50 months. This simply must change and it will do so when 
Corridor X is completed. U.S. 78 was designed and built more 
than 50 years ago when traffic patterns were significantly 
lower.
    In addition, the decades of wear and tear have taken their 
toll that have resulted in hundreds of traffic fatalities. 
Completion of Corridor X will be a win-win situation for 
commuters and businesses. And I'm pleased that the people in 
Birmingham have linked hands with the people of northwest 
Alabama to see Corridor X come to fruition. Working together, I 
believe that we can ensure our transportation infrastructure is 
ready to take us into the 21st century.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Congressman Aderholt. We will 
insert your complete statement in the record.
    [The statement follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Congressman Robert Aderholt
    Thank you for having me here today and allowing me to speak on the 
importance of Corridor X. A tremendous amount of progress has been made 
toward the eventual completion of this project in the past year in 
Washington and I look forward to the first day when Corridor X is 
opened.
    When I was elected to Congress in 1996, Corridor X was my number 
one priority. Working with the Alabama Congressional Delegation, the 
State Department of Transportation, local elected officials and 
interested citizens in North Alabama, we were able to secure the 
largest general fund appropriation in history--$45 million for the 
current fiscal year before the state match. Working together we were 
able to get this done and it is something we can all be proud of. 
However, that was just a good first step toward the completion of 
Corridor X.
    This year will prove to be the crucial year when a sense of 
fairness was restored to Alabama for transportation funding and the 
necessary resources to complete Corridor X were secured. Along with the 
annual appropriations process, this year Congress will reauthorize the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
    Congress last reauthorized the ISTEA legislation in 1991. 
Unfortunately, Alabama did not fare well in that legislation. Alabama 
is a ``donor state'' meaning we pay more in gasoline taxes to the 
transportation trust funds than we receive in return for transportation 
infrastructure projects. In fact, Alabama has only gotten 78 cents on 
the dollar since 1991.
    The lack of a sound surface transportation infrastructure is 
harming our ability to compete with other areas in the Southeast. 
Congress has already responded with the largest funding for surface 
transportation in history last year, $23.3 billion which is up from 
$20.9 billion the previous year and more than $1 billion over the 
President's request. I pledge to continue to build on this progress 
this year.
    The Alabama Congressional Delegation has been working together to 
ensure this does not happen again with the reauthorization. Thankfully, 
we are in a much better position this time around, with Members on the 
key committees.
    For example, in the Senate, Senator Shelby is the Chairman of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee which actually appropriates 
funding for the various transportation projects. Senator Sessions is on 
the Environment and Public Works Committee which has prime jurisdiction 
over the reauthorization of ISTEA.
    In the House, Congressman Bachus is a member of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee and the Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation which has prime jurisdiction over the reauthorization of 
ISTEA. Congressman Callahan, Congressman Cramer and I are members of 
the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee which appropriates 
funding for the transportation projects.
    The number one concern of the delegation is to ensure Alabama does 
not receive the short end of the stick on the overall amount of funding 
that comes from the Federal government.
    Last week the Senate passed a six-year reauthorization of ISTEA and 
the House will shortly do the same. What is important to note is that 
all competing long term reauthorizations are better for Alabama than 
current law.
    The debate for us is moving in the right direction. The central 
question has been answered. The State of Alabama will receive far more 
favorable treatment this time around. The real issue is how much more 
will Alabama receive as compared with current law.
    A central issue in the ISTEA debate is a specific funding category 
for the Appalachian Development Highway System. Historically, the main 
problem for the Appalachian Development Highway System which includes 
Corridor X has been a stable dedicated source of funding. Since the 
Appalachian Development Highway System is not part of the Interstate 
Highway System, it has had to rely on the annual appropriations 
process. This is why in some years Alabama has seen significant levels 
of funding and other years it received very small amounts. This is why 
in some years Alabama has seen significant levels of funding and other 
years it received very small amounts. This makes it very difficult for 
long term planning and is part of the reason that the Appalachian 
Development Highway System is only 78 percent completed and the 
Interstate Highway System is 99 percent completed.
    The House, the Senate and the President have all decided to include 
a specific funding category for the Appalachian Development Highway 
System. The real battle seems to be what level of funding will be 
secured in the final version of the bill. The President's proposal 
(NEXTEA) includes $2.1 billion over six years for the ADHS, the House's 
proposal (BESTEA) includes $2.5 billion for the ADHS, and the Senate's 
proposal has $2.2 billion for the ADHS.
    The funds for the Appalachian Development Highway System are 
disbursed by a funding formula based solely on the cost to complete the 
entire system of which Corridor X is one part. Alabama's share is 11 
percent so under the competing bills we will receive over $200 million 
before the state match from the highway trust funds.
    This figure does not take into account the appropriations process. 
As I mentioned earlier, Senator Shelby and I were able to secure $45 
million this year in the Transportation Appropriations bill. Each year 
we will be in a position to steer additional funds to Corridor X on top 
of the authorized funding from the highway trust fund.
    I have discussed the process to complete Corridor X up in 
Washington because I know everyone here understands why it is important 
to complete this project. There are two very consequential reasons why 
this highway must be completed now. The first is economic development 
for North West Alabama and the second is safety.
    It is an unacceptable omission that there is no Interstate Highway 
from Memphis to Birmingham. This makes it more costly for businesses in 
Birmingham but it also has slowed economic growth in North West 
Alabama. If you look at a map of Alabama, the counties that are 
experiencing surging economic activity are generally those with an 
Interstate Highway running through them. Many of the counties in North 
West Alabama will be able to create more jobs when Corridor X is 
completed. In addition, more businesses will be willing to locate along 
Corridor X in North West Alabama because the transportation 
infrastructure is sound.
    An equally compelling reason to complete Corridor X is safety 
concerns. The current two lane route on US 78 is one of the most 
dangerous highways in the nation. In Marion and Walker Counties we have 
averaged one death per month for over 50 consecutive months. This 
simply must change and will do so when Corridor X is completed. US 78 
was designed and built more than fifty years ago when traffic patterns 
were significantly lower. In addition, decades of wear and tear have 
taken their toll and have resulted in hundreds of traffic fatalities.
    Completion of Corridor X will be a win-win situation for commuters 
and businesses. I am pleased that the people in Birmingham have linked 
hands with the people in North West Alabama to see Corridor X come to 
fruition. Working together we will ensure our transportation 
infrastructure is ready to take us into the 21st century.

                   Statement of Representative Bachus

    Senator Shelby. Congressman Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
    First of all, I want to thank you on behalf of everyone in 
the Birmingham area for your strong, strong emphasis on the 
corridor act and for the funding that you have been able to 
direct toward this project.
    I have been asked to address project status and also 
funding issues. First of all, I think there has been a growing 
recognition on the part of the Birmingham community and of 
north Alabama for the need for this road. I would like to 
commend the chamber of commerce, I would like to commend 
Congressman Aderholt. He has made this his No. 1 project. And I 
think anytime you get a Congressman who takes on one project 
and concentrates on it, you see an effect. And I think that his 
efforts, really daily efforts, have resulted in a lot more 
emphasis on this project because it actually has a voice that 
can be identified, and that voice is Robert Aderholt in the 
House.
    With you as chairman of the Transportation and 
Appropriations Committee, I do not know that people in this 
room realize the significance of that, but if you wanted to put 
someone on any committee that would have more ability to 
influence funding for this project, it would be transportation 
chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, and we just happen 
to have Richard Shelby as the chairman of that subcommittee.
    Senator Shelby. I thank you.
    Mr. Bachus. I will say this, I think because of, not only 
chamber of commerce but a group of mayors all along the route 
pushing very hard for this project, informing us about the 
importance for their communities, it has grown really to where 
it is, in the Southeast, one of the top priorities of the 
Surface Transportation Committee on which I sit. And I think I 
have very good news for the community, for north Alabama, 
today, as far as the status of the ISTEA bill, the House of 
Representatives will increase funding, if the House bill--the 
Senate and the House bill are very similar, and I want to 
commend you and Senator----
    Senator Shelby. Congressman, I think they would be 
interested in your expanding your remarks on ISTEA right here 
today.
    Mr. Bachus. What we have is, Alabama has been receiving 
about $335 million for highways from the Federal Government. 
Under the new ISTEA bill, it will receive something in the 
neighborhood of $555 million, so you're talking about a 65-
percent increase in funding.
    In addition to that, prior to this year, there was no 
funding for Appalachian highways. The Energy and Commerce 
Committee funded the Appalachian Regional Commission and they 
have dedicated about $10 million--now this is in addition to 
the ISTEA highway money, they have committed about $10 million 
through Energy and Commerce a year, prior to this year when you 
and Congressman Aderholt increased the funding level about 
fourfold.
    Under the new Appalachian regional funding mechanism, and 
Congressman Aderholt mentioned that our share, there is a big--
for the first time, there is a separate category for highways. 
It is a several-billion-dollar category, and Alabama's share 
will go from 8 to 11 percent of Appalachian regional money. And 
what that means, bottom line, is that for Corridor X and 
Corridor Y--I think it is Corridor Y--Corridor V across 
Alabama, there will be about $40 million--and this figure could 
change in the next few weeks, but will be somewhere between $40 
and $44 million for those projects alone, per year.
    Senator Shelby. In addition to everything else.
    Mr. Bachus. In addition to the--first of all, we go from 
$335 to $555 million in highway money under ISTEA. In addition, 
we have an earmark for Corridor X and Corridor V of over $40 
million a year.
    Compare that with the present spending levels of about $10 
million a year and you see that, in Federal money, we're 
dedicating four to five times as much as we have been.
    The Surface Transportation Committee estimates that about 
62 percent of that money ought to go to Corridor X because 
Corridor V is further toward completion. Now Mr. Vaughn could 
speak to this probably a little better and give you the 
completion ratio. But bottom line, we will--the Senate has 
passed its ISTEA Bill. The House Surface Transportation 
Committee, on March 24, which is very close to today, March 24, 
we hope to report a bill out and have it pass the House before 
April 1. It will then go to a conference. But Alabama will get 
basically a bigger pie--I mean, there will be a bigger pie for 
all the States and Alabama will get a bigger slice of the pie.
    Now, as far as the impact of this project on the State of 
Alabama, the Surface Transportation Committee believes that 
this project, more than any other, will benefit metropolitan 
Birmingham--will benefit north Alabama and northwest Alabama. 
It is one of metropolitan Birmingham's two missing links; one 
to the Midwest, the other to Florida and south Georgia and 
panhandle of Florida. The other transportation need for the 
City of Birmingham is actually a project that is not even in 
Birmingham but will be an upgrading of the road between 
Montgomery and Dothan to tie into I-10, which will have an 
economic benefit for Birmingham.
    We also--the third project for Birmingham that is basically 
on a--I think a must-do basis, is the northern beltline.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
    Mr. Bachus. That will have probably more impact on 
commuters and on the economic development here in Birmingham. 
That project, because we are increasing total spending by 67 
percent of moneys given to the State, and those moneys are not 
dedicated to any one project, so the State of Alabama will be 
free to direct as little or as much as they want to to the 
northern beltline and to Corridor X, in addition to these $40 
to $50 million that both the authorization committee and the 
Appropriations Committee have targeted for these projects.
    I will say that, as much as you talk about the economic 
benefit, and our whole second panel is going to talk about 
economic benefit. The chamber has done a lot of work there, I 
would simply say that what you're doing is you're linking the 
Southeast and the Midwest which have more potential for growth 
than any other sectors, any other regions in the country. 
You're linking them with an interstate highway which they 
presently do not have.
    Other than the economic benefits, and for first time, I'll 
read part of my written statement because I think this probably 
says it best:

    But even more importantly, Corridor X is needed to improve 
safety. It seems that every week we lose another Alabamian on 
the dangerous stretch of road that is now U.S. 78. The 
completion of Corridor X will mean a safer commute and 
community, not only for our residents along the road, but for 
others traveling between Alabama and the Midwest.

    Finally, I would like to compliment you, Senator Shelby and 
Senator Sessions. In the House of Representatives we added a 
University of Alabama Transportation Center.
    Senator Shelby. That is right.
    Mr. Bachus. I was pleased last week to see that the Senate 
has also added $3.6 million--and we do not know exactly how 
much this will be, but approximately or potentially $3.6 
million over the next 6 years for the University of Alabama at 
Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, and Huntsville to study the 
transportation needs of our State.
    We talk about multimillion-dollar projects, but I am as 
excited about our future leaders, our present students being 
involved in our universities and in planning our transportation 
future based on our transportation needs. I think that any time 
you direct money toward planning, you do it in a scientific, 
scholarly way, you save a lot of money and you get a much 
better system.
    So with that, I'll close just by simply saying, Senator 
Shelby, I think you having this hearing here today, one of the 
few hearings nationwide, by the Appropriations Committee, shows 
not only--you've already shown by the appropriations you've put 
behind this project but also by being here today will make my 
job in the Surface Transportation Committee--this hearing today 
is going to make it a lot more to my advantage in gaining 
additional funds.

           Infrastructure Importance to Economic Development

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Congressman.
    I just want to make an observation or two. One, Senator 
Sessions is not present, but Congressman Bachus alluded to what 
happened in the Senate last week as far as ISTEA, the 
reauthorization bill. Senator Sessions serves on that 
committee, a very important committee which is counterpart to 
what Congressman Bachus serves on in the House.
    Congressman Aderholt and I do not serve on the authorizing 
committee, we serve on the Appropriations. So we have a good 
balance, I believe, for Alabama.
    A lot of you are here because you realize how important 
infrastructure is for economic development, for safety, and so 
forth. I believe that, if you look back, Corridor X should have 
been finished 10, 12 years, 15 years ago, and perhaps we did 
not have the clout, honestly, but we've got the positions now, 
in Alabama. In the House, with Congressman Bachus, Congressman 
Aderholt, Congressman Callahan, and in the Senate, and we're 
going to do it.
    I see Mary Buckelew here, and there are a lot of officials, 
mayors, and councilmen from all over, but she is the 
chairperson of the Jefferson County Commission. We've talked 
about something we're not holding a hearing on today but 
Congressman Bachus brought up, and that is the northern 
beltline. The northern beltline. I would--I think after this, 
down the road, we should have a hearing focusing only on the 
northern beltline.
    Everybody here in Jefferson County that drives through 
Jefferson County knows what 459 has meant. Can you imagine what 
the extension around tying on to 459 south of Bessemer and 
tying on up into northern Jefferson County will mean to the 
development of Jefferson County, especially west Jefferson 
County. It will be like daylight and dark. And we're going to 
do that. I know Spencer, you alluded to it, and that is very 
important to you, but it is important to all of us. It is 
important to economic development and I appreciate that.
    I appreciate both of you appearing here today. Congressman 
Bachus is my Congressman from Tuscaloosa, in my district, and I 
remind him that when I want to get his attention, you know, I 
say, look, we vote for you. You know, he likes that. 
[Laughter.]
    He says, keep voting for me.
    But you understand what this hearing is about: Corridor X 
and how it ties in with the system of highways in Alabama. You 
serve on the committee dealing with ISTEA in the House. This is 
a historic authorization bill that you're moving in the House.
    What is the timetable, what do you think? I know you cannot 
say exactly because nobody has an exact clock, an exact science 
in Washington.
    Mr. Bachus. Well, we had a breakthrough in the Senate, 
really, not in the House. I wish I could come here and say that 
the House of Representatives had had a breakthrough last week.
    Senator Shelby. We had the breakthrough, but you all will 
come back now.
    Mr. Bachus. That is right.
    And what that breakthrough was, though, that the--was that 
the 4.3 cents which----
    Senator Shelby. Explain that to the people here if you 
would.
    Mr. Bachus. Over the past 40 years, we've had a Congress 
which I think we all realize has increased spending and gone 
into deficit spending, sometimes called the tax-and-spend 
Congress. And what it did is, of the gas tax which were 
dedicated to roads, they diverted 4.3 cents to the general fund 
for other projects.
    Senator Shelby. And by 4.3 cents, that is----
    Mr. Bachus. Out of each gallon.
    Senator Shelby. You're talking about billions of dollars 
down the road, aren't you?
    Mr. Bachus. Talking about billions of dollars. You're 
basically talking about about 45 cents in taxes, of gas taxes 
for every gallon of gasoline. And they took about 10 percent of 
that. That is where the figure came from and they took about 10 
percent of it and diverted it into the general fund. You have 
consistently voted against that, I've noticed, and----
    Senator Shelby. Against putting it in the general fund, but 
to use it for the intended purpose, right?
    Mr. Bachus. And the intended purpose is for roads. So that 
makes an $80 billion difference.
    So when we go from our total appropriation of about one-
half the increase, little less than one-half is just from the 
effort of you and I and Congressman Aderholt, and really I 
think the Alabama delegation, with perhaps some exception, 
voted to dedicate to highways.
    Also Alabama is getting--as I said, they're getting a 
bigger share of the pie, so the Senate was able to get the 
votes to redirect that money toward highways. And so the House 
Surface Transportation Committee will report out a bill, our 
goal is by March 24, as I said. We hope to get it to the floor 
and I think will get it to the floor before April 1. I think it 
will probably be a 1- or 2-day process on the floor of the 
House. Then it will go into a conference. And we ought to have 
a new highway bill before May 1.
    What the State of Alabama needs to do, as you and I know, 
we are giving them the contract authority for 555 million 
dollars' worth of spending.
    Senator Shelby. That is a lot of jobs and a lot of 
planning.
    Mr. Bachus. Yes; this year they had contract authority for 
about $340 million. I believe they let about $325 million of 
that. They will need to be prepared to let those contracts and 
to start moving dirt. I think that to a certain extent, 
they've--there has been a lot of money spent on consultants. I 
do not think that is necessary on this project. The design work 
is complete, the route has been chosen. What we need is to move 
dirt and lay concrete.
    Senator Shelby. And fast.
    Mr. Bachus. That is right. They can direct--they will have 
$220 million more a year for all their projects. In addition, 
they will have $44 million, somewhere between $40 and $44 
million specifically for these two projects. I would urge the 
State, as soon as that bill is passed, on or before May 1, to 
be in a position to let contracts.
    Senator Shelby. I'm not in the State legislature, I spent 
some time as a State senator, but I--since I'm in Jefferson 
County, I believe that the people of Jefferson County ought to 
be treated equitably when it comes to building and finishing 
their roads and their highways because they pay in more to the 
highway fund in Alabama than any other county. And they have 
not always gotten back what they paid in, and a lot of you have 
raised this with me. I think you've got to raise that with the 
Governor, with your State House delegation, with your State 
Senate delegation. But it ought to be that way because this 
area is very important. Congressman Aderholt----
    Mr. Bachus. In fact, we've got two things that have hurt 
us. There has--the money has not been directed back to 
Jefferson County and Commissioner Gary White, I think, was the 
first person that actually did an extensive study on that, and 
I think has done a good job on----
    Senator Shelby. He is a good commissioner, outstanding.
    Mr. Bachus. He has done an outstanding job on letting 
people in Jefferson County know that they have not been getting 
back from the State nearly their fair share.
    We also--if you look at the funding, north Alabama has not 
gotten its fair share. So it has been a combination of those 
two factors. And I think we need to insist on equity. We now 
have equity from the Federal level and I want to stress--you 
know this and I know this, but very little of this--now 
Corridor X and Corridor V will have committed funds, but this 
$550 million a year is unearmarked. The Governor's 
association----
    Senator Shelby. And I trust it will not be squandered, 
don't you?
    Mr. Bachus. Yes; and that will be--you do not come to 
Washington to determine what projects will be built and which 
will not, you go to Montgomery to make those determinations, 
and that as we think it should be.
    And so I hope people realize that----
    Senator Shelby. I do, too.
    Mr. Bachus. That we're not earmarking----
    Senator Shelby. Well, I appreciate your remarks. We 
understand.
    Congressman Aderholt, I want to ask you one question. In 
your opinion, what is the most important reason for Corridor X 
to be finished and how soon----
    Mr. Aderholt. Right. Well, first of all, I think safety has 
to be the most compelling reason to complete Corridor X. 
Economic growth, as you know, is normally the central reason to 
upgrade transportation infrastructure and certainly that is an 
important aspect here.
    But really, in looking at U.S. Highway 78, as it currently 
exists, and the completion of Corridor X, the lives that have 
already been lost will continue to be lost until Corridor X is 
completed and really the human cost cannot be--the cost there 
cannot be tabulated and the dollar amounts pale in comparison 
to the lives of loved ones that have been lost in northwest 
Alabama.
    But that is not to downplay that the economic growth is 
very central, and I think to overlook that, certainly, would be 
a mistake. But I have received a number of newspaper stories 
and photographs from constituents to illustrate the need to 
complete Corridor X and, as I mentioned earlier in my opening 
statement, I think for the last 50 months, there has been an 
average of one life per month that has been lost on Highway 78, 
just in the Walker and Marion County area.
    Senator Shelby. At this point, can we get Mr. Jesse White, 
who is the Federal cochairman, Appalachian Regional Commission, 
Mr. Don Vaughn, assistant transportation director, if you 
gentlemen would come up, I wanted to get the Congressmen's 
remarks first.
    Your written statements will be made part of the record, if 
you would. Mr. White, since you're a very important player in 
this, since you represent the Appalachian Regional Council, the 
people here in the room would be very interested in your 
overview: where are we going, how soon we can get there, and 
where we are today.
    You might want to bring that microphone up close to you, 
otherwise they will not be able to hear you.

                    Statement of Jesse L. White, Jr.

    Mr. White. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First 
of all, let me commend you on bringing a hearing out into the 
Appalachian region. We have started a practice of trying to 
take at least one of our Commission meetings out into the 
region every year, I think it is good for our people to be able 
to join us.
    Let me thank you personally for your strong support for the 
ARC and that of the two Congressmen who joined me at the table, 
as well as, really, the entire Alabama delegation. Those 
Congressmen from Appalachia and Alabama, and I believe the 
whole Alabama delegation has consistently supported----
    Senator Shelby. Would you tell the audience, just to remind 
them, where Appalachian area begins, as far as your group is 
concerned? Just delineate it if you could.
    Mr. White. My first day on the job, which was a little over 
4 years ago, I was meeting with the staff and looking at the 
map, and I asked them, I said, is Appalachia defined by God or 
by Congress. And they said, young man, you must be new to 
Washington, there is no difference.
    Senator Shelby. Oh, there is no difference.
    Mr. White. So it is geologically pretty pure. It runs along 
the spine of the mountain chain, and it starts in southern New 
York, comes down the mountain chain and includes, you know, 
what we think of as Central----
    Senator Shelby. You are referring to the map on the left 
now?
    Mr. White. Map on the left, that is the Appalachian region.
    Senator Shelby. OK.
    Mr. White. We are 399 counties in all of West Virginia and 
parts of 12 other States, and that includes New York, parts of 
New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, then western North 
Carolina, western South Carolina, southwestern Virginia, parts 
of Tennessee, north Georgia, and then we swing, of course, 
across the South and get north Alabama and north Mississippi.
    Senator Shelby. OK.
    Mr. White. One thing that is very unique about the ARC, we 
are unique in Washington in the sense that we are a true 
Federal/State partnership. The Commission consists of a Federal 
representative appointed by the President, and I sit with the 
13 Governors. And the interesting thing about it is, Congress 
gave us each one vote. I'm the only Federal official that does 
not have the final authority to spend money or issue 
regulations, I have to get the Governors to go along with me, 
the Governors have to get me to go along with them, so it is 
really a joint policymaking model that is about 30 years ahead 
of its time.
    Our origins go back to when John Kennedy was campaigning 
for President in West Virginia in 1959 and was stunned at the 
poverty he saw. Said he would do something about it, if 
elected, and appointed, once he was elected, what was called 
the President's Appalachian Regional Commission [PARC], the 
PARC Commission.
    It issued its report to President Johnson after Kennedy was 
assassinated and Johnson pushed through the Appalachian 
Regional Development Act of 1965.
    It is interesting, the opening sentence of the PARC Report 
says, the following, it is kind of a haunting sentence. It 
says, ``We find that Appalachia is a region apart, both 
geographically and statistically.'' And it went ahead to paint 
a picture of a region that had really been left out of the 
mainstream of the American economy.
    And the first and foremost reason for that was its 
geographical isolation. And one of its first findings was that, 
right next to this huge population corridor going up and down 
the east coast and along the gulf coast, stood this area that 
had been left out of the Interstate System.
    Senator Shelby. Isolated.
    Mr. White. Isolated. And this report said, until this 
region is connected to the mainstream of the American economy, 
it will never be able to participate.
    And so Congress authorized what has become a 3,025-mile 
highway system designed to connect us to the interstate grid, 
and that is really the heart of the work that the ARC does.
    In addition, the Congress found that highways were the 
first and most important condition of economic growth, but not 
the only one, and so it authorized us to work in what we call 
our area development program, which our local development 
districts worked with us on, and that is everything in terms of 
industrial parks, education and training, water and sewer, the 
basic elements of community and economic development that you 
have to have to capitalize on your highways.
    And so we have a full gamut of economic development 
programs, about two-thirds of the money that Congress has given 
us in the history of the ARC has gone to building our highway 
system. It is now about 79 percent complete, and I believe as 
Congressman Aderholt said, the interstate is 99 percent 
complete, so we're a little behind.
    We have always been funded, our highways have basically 
always been funded out of the general fund, and what is 
historic this year, as the Congressmen have pointed out, and as 
have you, Senator, is that for the first time in history, the 
President and both Houses of Congress are now committed to 
funding our roads out of the trust fund. This is a huge 
development, because we've been able to get only about $100 
million a year divided by 13 States to build our roads. And now 
we're looking at something like $2.2----
    Senator Shelby. We did better last year, didn't we?
    Mr. White. Well, I'm going to come to that.
    Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
    Mr. White. But now we're looking at $2.2 to $2.5 billion 
out of the trust fund.
    Last year, thanks a lot to you and Senator Byrd in the 
Senate and our colleagues in the House, we had a banner year. 
In fact, the ARC had the highest appropriations level last year 
in our history. In our regular appropriations, we went into 
conference with $160 million from both Houses and came out with 
$170 million. So that was pretty good. And then we had this 
special $300 million earmark for our highway system.
    So we want to thank you very much for your leadership. I 
think the actions that the Congress took last year sort of 
catapulted us to this position where we now have consensus on 
really making a substantial investment in completing the 
system. So not only on behalf of Alabamians, but on behalf of 
the 22 million people that live in the Appalachian region, I 
would like to thank you.
    The way our system works, Mr. Chairman, is Congress has 
authorized 3,025 miles for our highway system that you see on 
the map on the left. The Commission then establishes what the 
corridors are, and they are not numbers, they are letters. We 
go from A to X. We are talking about two of the corridors here 
in Alabama. X was actually one of the last ones added to our 
system, I think it was added in the midseventies, if memory 
serves correctly.
    Of our entire system, 2,259 miles now are open, 117 miles 
are under construction, which is about a 79-percent completion 
rate as has been mentioned. The bad news is that the last 21 
percent will cost more than the first 79 percent because we're 
going through some of the toughest terrain and because, 
obviously, prices have escalated. It would have been cheaper if 
we had gone ahead and finished this sooner.
    But now we are looking at a price tag of about $8.5 billion 
for the system, the Federal share of $6.8 billion. There is 
already some money in the pipeline, the remaining Federal cost 
is about $6.2 billion. So as you can see, this proposal and 
NEXTEA is really an investment to finish at least one-third of 
the system in the next 6 years. So that is just tremendous 
news.
    Congress allocates this money to the Commission. I sit down 
with the Governors once a year in this power-sharing 
arrangement I mentioned, and we vote an allocation to the 
States. And that allocation is based on the cost to complete. 
In other words, Alabama's part of the cost of complete as a 
percentage of the whole, determines what Alabama gets, and that 
is, as has been mentioned, that is about 11.1 percent.
    In terms of the two corridors in Alabama, X and V, there 
are about 231 miles in these two corridors eligible for 
funding, about 125 miles of that are open, about 40 miles are 
being built, 66 miles are left remaining.
    In terms of V, which is the road that runs down from 
Tennessee through Huntsville, that is a 145-mile corridor.
    Senator Shelby. Does that tie on through Chattanooga?
    Mr. White. Yes, sir; I believe it does.
    Senator Shelby. OK.
    Mr. White. 100 miles are now open, 23 miles are under 
construction, so you have got about an 85 percent completion 
effort on V.
    In terms of X, it is 95 miles authorized, 26 miles are 
open, 17 miles are under construction so we only have about a 
45-percent completion.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. White, I know this is not on scale--it 
was done by my staff--but does this give you a rough idea of 
where we are as far as, you see, starting over in Mississippi 
in the blue, the deep blue, coming into Alabama where----
    Mr. White. Yes, sir; that is----
    Senator Shelby. And then the red would be what is not 
finished coming into Birmingham, is that correct?
    Mr. White. Right. That is largely an accurate scale.
    Senator Shelby. OK.
    Mr. White. I myself will be driving that corridor this 
afternoon. I grew up in Mississippi, I have driven it before, 
so I have a personal passion for seeing it completed. I am 
looking forward to the beautiful countryside of Alabama, I am 
not looking forward to parts of the road that I will have to 
travel this afternoon. I am going to Ole' Miss, my alma mater 
tonight, where the President's Commission on Race is meeting, 
and that will be quite an emotional meeting for me because I 
was a freshman at Ole' Miss in the Meredith year. So that will 
be quite an event.
    So there is no question that this corridor needs to be 
completed, Mr. Chairman. The economic benefits are obvious, the 
safety needs have been mentioned. We are currently undertaking 
a comprehensive study of the economic impact of our corridors, 
we will be sharing that with you as it is completed this year. 
And we are also undertaking a study of the safety impacts of 
our corridors. We will also be sharing that with you, and I 
look forward to working with you and our colleagues on the 
Hill, the entire delegation from Alabama, in finishing our 
work.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. White. We have your written 
statement and it will be made part of the record.
    [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Jesse L. White, Jr.
    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here in Alabama on behalf of the 
Clinton Administration to talk about the importance of completing the 
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). Today, more than 30 
years after the first spadeful of dirt was turned on the ADHS, only 79 
percent of the system is open or under construction. This 
Administration believes strongly that it is in the national interest to 
accelerate the day when Appalachia will be fully served by a system of 
modern highways. We are pleased to join with your Subcommittee in 
working toward this goal.
    This Subcommittee's strong support this past year for the 
Appalachian Regional Commission and its highway program has helped give 
us the largest highway funding level in the Commission's history. Mr. 
Chairman, thanks to you, Senator Byrd, and other key Members of 
Congress, we are now able to make substantial progress toward 
completing this critical highway system--and honoring the commitment 
that the nation made to our region over three decades ago that we would 
have a network of modern highways that could provide the engine for 
economic growth in small communities all across Appalachia. On behalf 
of our governors and our small towns and communities, I say a heartfelt 
thanks.
    There is no single item more crucial to the economic development of 
Appalachia than completion of the Appalachian Development Highway 
System. This highway system is the cornerstone of the Commission's plan 
to develop the region, criss-crossing Appalachia and linking the region 
to the national interstate highway system. From its inception--now 
almost 33 years ago--the ARC highway system has been designed to be an 
instrument of economic development, first, by improving commerce and 
transportation within the region, and second, by opening the region to 
the rest of the nation and linking it to national and international 
markets.
                               background
    A modern system of highways is a critical response to Appalachia's 
isolation--a product of treacherous terrain, narrow winding roads, and 
low travel speeds. That isolation itself accounts for much of the 
region's relative economic stagnation. Because of high construction 
costs and low traffic counts, the interstate highway system had largely 
bypassed Appalachia, leaving vast areas of the region cut off from the 
mainstream of American economic life. Moreover, the poor condition of 
the roads that did exist within Appalachia made driving hazardous and 
discouraged commerce and economic development.
    Congress expressly authorized a regional highway system based not 
on traffic counts but on its development potential--its ability to open 
up the region, connecting communities and workers to broader markets 
and fostering the prosperity that flows from this expanded commerce. 
Corridors were chosen to close the gap between key markets on either 
side of Appalachia that were not linked by the interstate system to the 
region.
    The old system of roads--characterized by low travel speeds, long 
travel distances, poor design standards, and unsafe conditions--made 
the delivery of basic services difficult, expensive, and occasionally 
impossible, further impeding the region's opportunity for growth. 
Without an effective system of highways, adequate health care, for 
example, would be unavailable to literally thousands of Appalachian 
citizens, and children would have to travel hours on dangerous winding 
roads to school.
    Thus those wise men and women who guided the creation of ARC in the 
1960's declared that highways were an essential condition for the 
region's future growth. In the intervening years, their wisdom has been 
vindicated. Today the economic impetus to complete the system has never 
been more compelling. In today's global marketplace, a modern system of 
highways is a critical first step in fostering economic growth and 
enabling Appalachia to become a net contributor to the national 
economy.
                                 status
    Congress has authorized 3,025 miles for the Appalachian Development 
Highway System. The Commission has established 26 highway corridors, 
with each of the region's 13 states being served by at least one 
corridor. To date 2,259 miles of the system are open to traffic, with 
another 117 miles under construction. The good news is that 79 percent 
of the system is open or under construction. The bad news is that the 
remaining 649 miles are some of the most difficult and expensive to 
build.
    Last year ARC concluded a study of the cost to complete the system. 
The estimated total cost, as of September 30, 1996, was $8.5 billion, 
with the federal share of that cost estimated at $6.8 billion. After 
deducting federal funds that were available for use in fiscal year 
1997, the federal share was estimated at $6.2 billion.
    The highways are planned, designed and constructed by the 
individual state highway agencies using funds made available from 
several Federal sources including appropriations to the ARC and funds 
from the 1991 ISTEA and other appropriations, such as the special 
appropriation your Subcommittee provided for fiscal year 1998. The 
sequencing of the building of corridors within a state is the 
prerogative of each respective governor.
    The Commission allocates funds among our states based essentially 
on each state's relative share of the cost to complete the entire 
system. At lower appropriations levels, we do provide a floor and a 
ceiling, in order to provide a bit more equity among the states. 
According to our latest cost-to-complete study, Alabama's share is 11.1 
percent.
                            economic impact
    The economic benefits of highway improvements are remarkable. A 
recent Department of Transportation report showed that historically 
almost 30 percent of the nation's growth in the rate of productivity 
can be attributed to highway improvements. The major performance 
measures of the Appalachian Development Highway System are the travel 
efficiencies and the regional economic development which the ADHS has 
spurred. Even though the entire system is only three-quarters complete, 
studies have found that the ADHS has significantly improved travel 
efficiencies and measurably boosted employment, income and population 
growth in the region, while enhancing safety and reducing the costs and 
difficulty of extending health, education, and other critical services 
to the region.
    A 1993 study for the National Science Foundation, which examined 27 
years of Appalachian regional development, found that economic growth 
in the region was greatest in those counties with ADHS corridors. Those 
110 counties with ARC highways grew 69 percentage points faster in 
income, 6 percent faster in population growth and 49 percentage points 
faster in earnings than did counties with similar socioeconomic 
characteristics outside the region.
    Last year ARC launched a major study of the economic impact of our 
highway system. The study--which is a comprehensive analysis of 
segments of 12 ADHS corridors that are 75 percent or more complete--
will look at safety benefits, reduced travel times, reduced vehicle 
operating costs resulting from the completion of the segments, and, 
most importantly, the job creation that has occurred as a consequence 
of our highways. The study is being conducted under a contract with 
Wilbur Smith Associates, a firm nationally recognized for its 
feasibility studies and sophisticated econometric analysis. We are now 
reviewing the preliminary data from the study and expect to have a full 
report available later in the spring. We will certainly share those 
results with you when they become available. I am confident that those 
data will tell a compelling story of how the ADHS is transforming the 
economic landscape of Appalachia.
    At the request of your committee, we are also conducting a study of 
the impact that the completed ADHS corridors will have on safety. Based 
on information provided by state highway agencies, this study, which 
the Federal Highway Administration is conducting for us, will compare 
accident data from completed sections of the ADHS with data from 
accidents on unbuilt segments of the ADHS. The analysis of the 
information is expected to show a significant reduction in accidents 
attributable to the highway improvements on the corridors under the 
ADHS program. This report is expected to be completed in May, and we 
will share it with you just as soon as it becomes available.
    Mr. Chairman, these studies can quantify the impact of the ADHS, 
but they fail to capture the human dimension of these highways. A year 
and a half ago then-Highway Administrator Rodney Slater and I spent 
three days traveling the ADHS in four states--the first time in history 
that the ARC Federal Co-Chairman and the Federal Highway Administrator 
had jointly examined our system. Along the route of the proposed 
Corridor G in West Virginia, we cautiously--and nervously--navigated a 
winding two-lane U.S. highway, coming to an abrupt stop at a railroad 
crossing a couple of miles from our scheduled lunch engagement in 
Williamson, West Virginia. We waited almost 15 minutes as two long coal 
trains passed in front of us. For us it was only a minor 
inconvenience--we were just a few minutes late for lunch. But what if 
there had been an ambulance rushing a pregnant mother to the hospital? 
Or a farmer needing immediate medical assistance? And imagine the 
competitive disadvantage these kinds of inefficient and unscheduled 
delays cause local companies in this area.
                            adhs in alabama
    As you are aware, Alabama's portion of the system includes two 
corridors, X and V, totaling 242.7 miles. Both of these corridors will 
provide east-west access between the Appalachian region of Alabama and 
the surrounding area while also providing missing links to the national 
interstate system.
    The completion of Corridor V from the Mississippi state line near 
Red Bay through Decatur and Huntsville is well underway. The 145-mile 
corridor follows State Route 24, Interstate 565, and U.S. 72 across the 
state with over 84 percent of the corridor open to traffic or under 
construction at a total cost of $289.2 million. The 1997 cost estimate 
showed some $183.5 million of work remained to be completed on the 
corridor. This includes construction on new location and added lanes on 
Alabama Route 24 from Red Bay east to Moulton, completion of an unbuilt 
section in Decatur, and upgrading the existing highway east of 
Interstate 565 in Huntsville.
    Corridor X linking Birmingham, Jasper, and Weston will be 
instrumental in providing an outlet for the traffic congestion along 
the U.S. 78 corridor, and it should contribute significantly to 
reducing the number of serious accidents along U.S. 78. I will myself 
be driving along this route this afternoon, as I travel to Oxford, 
Mississippi, to join a discussion of the President's Initiative on 
Race, so I will get a chance to experience first hand again--as I have 
in the past as a native of this area--the congestion and safety 
problems along this corridor that a number of your constituents have 
written me about.
    Portions of the 98-mile corridor are complete or under construction 
from Jasper west to Mississippi, with 44 percent of the corridor open 
to traffic or under construction at a total cost of $292 million. The 
remaining work was estimated at $716 million in the 1997 cost estimate.
    Remaining work includes construction on new location from Brilliant 
southeast to Birmingham. Final design is under way from Brilliant to 
west of Jasper, and final design and construction are under way on 
various sections around Jasper. Final design is under way on sections 
from Jasper to northwest of Birmingham, and an environmental study is 
under way on the final section, including the connection to Interstate 
65 in Birmingham.
    The scope of the work, however, tells only part of the story. The 
real impact of the Appalachian highway system in Alabama and throughout 
the region is on the lives, and livelihoods, of the people who travel 
these roads. Corridor X, when completed, will offer a safer, faster, 
smoother alternative to the heavy traffic and hazardous intersections 
that characterize the unimproved sections of U.S. 78 in Alabama. 
Moreover, it will provide a non-stop freeway connection between 
Birmingham and Memphis when it hooks up with the interstate-quality 
section of U.S. 78 at Tupelo. When completed, Corridor X will save 
time, money, and lives--it's just that simple and that important.
                           legislative status
    This fiscal year, the Commission received a record $402.5 million 
in appropriations for the highway system, thanks in no small part to 
your efforts, Mr. Chairman, in providing a special $300 million in the 
Department of Transportation Appropriations bill. This increase will 
allow expedited work in Alabama and the 12 other Appalachian states. As 
a result of this increase in funding, Alabama's ARC highway allocation 
for fiscal year 1998 is just over $50 million--that is roughly $40 
million more than Alabama would have had available without the special 
$300 million appropriation, and Senator Shelby, we thank you again for 
your work on this.
    I am also pleased that the Clinton Administration has made an 
unparalleled commitment to the timely completion of the Appalachian 
highway system by requesting $2.19 billion for the ADHS in its six-year 
NEXTEA proposal. This marks the first time that an Administration has 
proposed funding for our highways out of the Highway Trust Fund. It is 
my understanding that this is the same figure that is in the Senate's 
version of the highway authorization. The bill that the House is 
expected to consider in a few weeks also proposes funding our system 
out of the Highway Trust Fund, at a six-year total of $2.25 billion. 
These are significant developments that will, for the first time, 
provide a steady and reliable source of funding for the system.
    In summary, the completion of the 3,025-mile Appalachian 
Development highway system is essential to bringing Appalachia into the 
national and international economic mainstream. ARC is committed to 
building the entire system and welcomes the kind of increase in funding 
that Congress is considering. The proposed additional authorizations 
would provide a multi-year source of funding which is essential to the 
concentrated effort needed to complete the system as contemplated when 
Congress established the Appalachian highway program.
    Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your strong advocacy of 
the Appalachian Regional Commission programs, and your untiring work on 
behalf of the people of Alabama and Appalachia. It is because of people 
like you that we have made the progress we have on the Appalachian 
highway system, and for the first time, can look forward to the 
prospect of completing the system in the foreseeable future, thereby 
redeeming the promise that the nation made to our region over three 
decades ago.

                       Favorable Outlook for ARC

    Senator Shelby. Mr. White, just in a nutshell, can you sum 
up where we are and where do you think we will be at the rate 
we are going, you know, with all of the good news, assuming 
that we work it out as Congressman Bachus says, between the 
House and the Senate ultimately, in a conference, a favorable 
conference for ARC plus additional money that we're going to be 
working on every year with ARC.
    Mr. White. Right.
    Senator Shelby. The best strategy for us, as far as a 
deadline, I know deadlines slip but, you know, this has slipped 
too long. Where are we going to be in 5 years if we really work 
like the devil on this?
    Mr. White. Well, I think as just a rough rule of thumb----
    Senator Shelby. Yeah, I know that.
    Mr. White. If we get the NEXTEA enacted as----
    Senator Shelby. What Congressman Bachus was talking about.
    Mr. White. Within the range we are talking about, you could 
see one-third of that red become blue and, of course, that is 
just using the ADHS earmark. That does not count other moneys 
that perhaps would be appropriated----
    Senator Shelby. That is right.
    Mr. White [continuing]. And applied to that, either by the 
Congress or by Alabama.
    Senator Shelby. What we can add each year as we did last 
year makes that faster.
    Mr. White. Makes it faster, yes.
    Senator Shelby. So we are seeing the light at the end of 
the tunnel----
    Mr. White. I believe so.
    Senator Shelby [continuing]. Although it is not bright yet, 
it is getting brighter is it not?
    Mr. White. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. OK. Mr. Vaughn----
    Mr. Bachus. Senator Shelby, I might say this, when we talk 
about the Federal match, we're talking about one-third within 
the next 3 years. There also is a State match----
    Mr. White. Right.
    Mr. Bachus. Which--so we're talking about----
    Mr. White. That's another 20 percent.
    Mr. Bachus. Another 20 percent. So you are talking about--
you are talking about close to 40--closer to 40 percent 
funding, I believe.
    Senator Shelby. That is good. Mr. Vaughn----
    Mr. Vaughn. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
    Senator Shelby. You are the one to comment on where we are 
going and how we're going to get there fast.

                        Statement of Don Vaughn

    Mr. Vaughn. Well, we are going faster than we have been, 
thanks to your leadership in the Senate and your ability to 
bring more funds to Alabama.
    Congressman Aderholt, Congress Bachus, along with 
Congressman Callahan and Congressman Cramer, and all your 
interest in transportation.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Sessions, too.
    Mr. Vaughn. And Senator Sessions, certainly. I did not mean 
to forget Senator Sessions.
    It has certainly done a lot to increase Alabama's clout as 
far as transportation is concerned, and we look forward to 
graduating from the donor State status into a State that can 
receive additional funding to help us meet our transportation 
needs.
    The 4.3 cents that Congressman Bachus referred to earlier 
is a major step in the right direction. That is a gasoline tax, 
it is a user fee and it should go nowhere but to transportation 
and we were very pleased to see that come out.
    May 1, the Senate has met their goal, their deadline, and I 
was real pleased to hear Congressman Bachus say that the House 
was going to meet the May 1 deadline as well. May 1 is a 
significant date because that is when the current extension 
expires and no more Federal funding authorizations after May 1. 
So we are very encouraged to hear that the House is moving and 
hopefully will not allow that to happen.
    Now let me address some of the merits and needs of Corridor 
X. The basic route of Corridor X was included in the original 
interstate and defense highway plans developed in the mid-
1930's. Unfortunately, when the Interstate System was approved 
in the mid-1950's, this route was one of the final segments 
deleted from the original 40,000 miles.
    Public interest in the route was revived with passage of 
the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 which had the 
stated goal to provide a highway system to open areas with 
developmental potential where commerce and communication had 
been inhibited by lack of access.
    Corridor X was added to the Appalachian Development Highway 
Program with the passage of the Surface Transportation Act of 
1978. In June 1979, the Federal Highway Administration 
authorized the Alabama Highway Department at that time to begin 
work to determine the location of the 97-mile freeway project. 
In 1978, Senator, I worked in the location section of the 
Highway Department, was involved in making the original 
estimate. It was 97 miles and estimated to cost $100 million, 
and we were aghast it was going to cost $1 million a mile to 
build this freeway system.
    Senator Shelby. We should have built it, should we not? 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Vaughn. To date, the Department has obligated $420 
million for both Corridors X and V. Of that amount, Corridor X 
has received $228 million Federal dollars which includes $91 
million of special appropriations over and above the 
Appalachian developmental highway funds.
    This money has constructed 23 miles of freeway which are 
open to traffic from the Mississippi State line to Marion 
County Road 45, south of Hamilton. Additionally, there are 19 
miles currently under construction. One section extends the 
freeway from Marion County 45 to State Route 129 at Winfield 
and another constructs a new segment from Walker County Road 11 
to U.S. 78 near Seedrum. A third section, the Jasper bypass, 
extends from U.S. 78 west of Jasper to the Bevill Industrial 
Park Road east of Jasper. Currently all remaining sections of 
Corridor X are in the final design and/or right-of-way 
acquisition phases.
    The cost to complete right-of-way acquisition and construct 
the remaining portion of Corridor X is estimated at this time 
to be approximately $600 million. The Department has an 
available balance of $60 million to be spent on both Corridors 
X and V. This balance consists of $9 million carried over from 
previous years and $51 million allocated by Congress this year.
    When Corridor X is completed, it is estimated that U.S. 78 
will see an 18- to 50-percent reduction in the amount of 
traffic that would have used U.S. 78 had Corridor X not been 
built. Additionally, some studies indicate a 39-percent 
decrease in traffic accidents along U.S. 78 with Corridor X in 
place.
    Currently in the Jasper area, the traffic using U.S. 78 is 
a mixture of long-distance commercial trucks and local and 
commuter vehicles. With the completion of Corridor X, safety 
will be enhanced by the separation of these two classes of 
traffic. Further the proposed freeway will encourage economic 
development and diversification in an area dominated by the 
coal industry. A completed Corridor X will result in easier 
access from the rural areas of west Alabama to the State's 
largest metropolitan area with its cultural, educational, and 
medical facilities.
    At current funding levels, the Department's plan would have 
all segments of Corridor X either open to traffic or under 
construction in a three-phase program over the next 12 to 15 
years. The first phase, a 19-mile segment between Marion County 
45 and the Jasper bypass will complete the freeway from the 
Mississippi State line to east of Jasper at an estimated cost 
of approximately $100 million.
    The second phase, a 16-mile segment from U.S. 78 at 
Graysville to I-65 will address an area of heavy congestion on 
U.S. 78. This portion of the route is estimated to cost nearly 
$300 million.
    The final phase of construction, from east of Jasper to 
U.S. 78 at Graysville is a 20-mile segment that will cost $200 
million and complete Corridor X from the Mississippi State line 
to Birmingham. This total 97-mile Corridor X freeway will 
represent a nearly $900 million investment in transportation 
infrastructure.
    Thank you very much.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Vaughn. We will insert your 
prepared statement in the record.
    [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Donald W. Vaughn
    The basic route of Corridor X was included in the original 
interstate and defense highway plans developed in the mid-1930's. 
Unfortunately, when the interstate system was approved in the mid-
1950's, this route was one of the final segments deleted from the 
original 40,000 miles.
    Public interest in the route was revived with passage of the 
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 which had the stated goal 
to ``provide a highway system to open areas with developmental 
potential where commerce and communication have been inhibited by a 
lack of access.'' Corridor X was added to the Appalachian Development 
Highway Program with the passage of the Surface Transportation Act of 
1978.
    In June of 1979, the Federal Highway Administration authorized the 
Alabama Department of Transportation to begin work to determine the 
location of the 97 mile freeway project. To date, the department has 
obligated $420 million for both Corridors X and V. Of that amount, 
Corridor X has received $228 million, which includes $91 million of 
special appropriations over the APD funds.
    This money has constructed 23 miles of freeway which are open to 
traffic from the Mississippi State line to Marion CR-45 south of 
Hamilton.
    Additionally, there are 19 miles currently under construction. One 
section extends the freeway from Marion CR-45 to SR-129 at Winfield and 
another constructs a new segment from Walker CR-11 to US-78 at Cedrum. 
A third section, the Jasper Bypass, goes from US-78 west of Jasper to 
the Bevill Industrial Park Road east of Jasper.
    Currently, all remaining sections of Corridor X are in the final 
design and right-of-way acquisition phases.
    The cost to complete right-of-way acquisition and construct the 
remaining portions of Corridor X is estimated to be approximately $600 
million. The Department has an available balance of $60 million to be 
spent on both Corridor X and V. This balance consists of $9 million 
carried over from previous years and $51 million allocated by Congress 
for this year.
    When Corridor X is completed, it is estimated that US-78 will see 
an 18 percent to 50 percent reduction in the amount of traffic that 
would have used US-78 had Corridor X not been built. Additionally, some 
studies indicate a 39 percent decrease in traffic accidents on US-78.
    Currently, in the Jasper area, the traffic using US-78 is a mixture 
of long distance commercial trucks and local and commuter vehicles. 
With the completion of Corridor X, safety will be enhanced by the 
separation of these two classes of traffic. Further, the proposed 
freeway will encourage economic development and diversification in an 
area dominated by the coal industry. A completed Corridor X will result 
in easier access from the rural areas of west Alabama to the state's 
largest metropolitan area with its cultural, educational, and medical 
facilities.
    At current funding levels, the Department's plan would have all 
segments of Corridor X either open to traffic or under construction in 
a three phase program over the next 15 years.
    The first phase, a 19 mile segment between Marion CR-45 and the 
Jasper Bypass, will complete the freeway from the Mississippi State 
line to east of Jasper at an estimated cost of approximately $100 
million.
    The second phase, a 16 mile segment from US-78 at Graysville to I-
65, will address an area of heavy congestion on US-78. This portion of 
the route is estimated to cost nearly $300 million.
    The final phase of construction, from east of Jasper to US-78 at 
Graysville, is a 20 mile segment that will cost $200 million and 
complete Corridor X from the Mississippi State line to Birmingham.
    The total 97 mile Corridor X freeway will represent a nearly $900 
million investment in transportation infrastructure.

                 Importance of Transportation Projects

    Senator Shelby. First of all, on behalf of the committee, I 
want to thank Congressman Bachus, Congressman Aderholt, Mr. 
White, and Mr. Vaughn for appearing here. And we are going to 
keep working this, we are going to finish it, are we not? Thank 
you.
    This will complete the first panel. We appreciate this, and 
all of your statements will be made part of this hearing record 
in their entirety.
    Mr. Bachus. Senator Shelby, let me make one final comment.
    Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bachus. Working on the Surface Transportation 
Committee, I have come to realize that when we talk about 
transportation projects, what we are really talking about is 
our future.
    Senator Shelby. That is right.
    Mr. Bachus. Without them, there will not be any economic 
growth in this area. With them, we and our children will 
continue to prosper and a strong economy is a part of that 
equation. And that is not going to be--that will not happen 
unless we put the money behind the transportation 
infrastructure.
    Senator Shelby. We are going to make it happen working 
together. It has got to.
    Thank you, gentlemen.

                                panel 2

                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENTS OF:
        WILLIAM BUECHNER, DIRECTOR, ECONOMICS AND RESEARCH, AMERICAN 
            ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
        BARRY COPELAND, VICE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, BIRMINGHAM 
            AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
        J. FRANK FILGO, PRESIDENT, ALABAMA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION
        AL GIBBS, DIRECTOR, CORPORATE AFFAIRS, AAA-ALABAMA

                       introduction of witnesses

    Senator Shelby. Our second panel will focus on the economic 
and safety benefits of Corridor X. We will have Mr. William 
Buechner, director of economics and research at the American 
Road and Transportation Builders Association. As I said 
earlier, Mr. Barry Copeland, vice chairman of government 
affairs, Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Frank Filgo, 
president and CEO of Alabama Trucking Association and Mr. Al 
Gibbs, director of corporate affairs of the Alabama Chapter of 
the American Automobile Association.
    Gentlemen, if you would come to the hearing table.
    All of your written testimony will be made part of the 
record in its entirety for the purpose of this hearing and if 
you will sum up briefly your testimony, you have had the 
benefit of what was here today.
    Mr. Buechner.

                     statement of william buechner

    Mr. Buechner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is William 
Buechner and I am the director of economics and research for 
the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
    Senator Shelby. Do you want to take that microphone closer 
to you? It is not very sensitive.
    Mr. Buechner. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my statement, I 
would like to express the appreciation of ARTBA and our members 
for your leadership in expanding Federal investment in 
highways, particularly the large increase provided for fiscal 
year 1998 in last year's appropriations bill. Your leadership 
has been instrumental in getting us to the funding level we 
enjoy today, and that is widely recognized and appreciated by 
our members.
    ARTBA is a national association with more than 4,000 
members representing virtually every segment of the 
transportation construction industry that has an interest in 
Federal investment in transportation infrastructure programs. 
We have 32 State chapters, including a very strong chapter in 
Alabama, the Alabama Road Builders where we have a very long-
time affiliation.
    During the past year and a half, ARTBA has been doing a lot 
of research into economics and safety aspects of highways, and 
we want to represent some of the findings here this morning.
    First, highways benefit a State in two ways. First is the 
short-term stimulus that the local economy gets from highway 
construction. The second and far more important is the long-
term benefit as the new highway facilitates new business and 
expands the access of local firms to a larger market.
    The transportation construction industry is a major 
American industry and a major source of jobs. According to the 
Department of Transportation, the industry of designing, 
building, maintaining, and manufacture--and managing the 
Nation's transportation infrastructure is a $140 billion 
industry, more than 60 percent of those expenditures are for 
highways, and in fact 70 percent of construction expenditures 
for transportation are for highways.
    And to put this in perspective, this industry is about 50 
percent larger than the output of all of the farms in the 
United States and it is about the same size as the electronics 
industry, including the entire computer industry. So it is a 
major industry in the American economy.
    It is an industry that employs over 1.6 million people, 
which is about 1.3 percent of all of the payroll jobs in the 
United States, some of those jobs are with the private 
contractors who do the construction work, a number of the jobs 
are with the State and local transportation departments that 
maintain and manage the highways as well as jobs in the 
industries that supply materials and services to the highway 
contractors.
    In Alabama, the industry employs over 27,000 people. Again, 
most of those are in design and construction and maintenance of 
the highway system, which is about 1\1/2\ percent of all the 
payroll jobs in the State. So it is an even more important 
industry in Alabama than it is for the rest of the country. And 
in general, these are very well paying jobs with average hourly 
earnings about 20 to 40 percent above jobs in other sectors of 
the economy.
    You referred to a Tripp study this morning, we said that 
for every $1 billion of highway expenditures, about 1,000 jobs 
are created in Alabama. But that is kind of the trickle-down 
effect from spending this money anywhere in the country.
    When a project is done here, the job creation impact is 
even much stronger and it is probably onsite, when the Corridor 
X project is being built, we are probably talking well above 
1,000, plus there are the jobs in the supplier industries which 
add to that. And with a major company like Vulcan Materials 
right here in Birmingham, the impact on Alabama is going to be 
much bigger than the figure that Tripp was quoting.
    But even more important for a State like Alabama is the 
long-term impact that a project like Corridor X can have on the 
State's economy.
    Last year, ARTBA published a study on the importance of the 
Federal Highway Program to the economic prosperity of the 
individual States, and we have supplied a copy of that for the 
hearing record. We found using data from the 1993 Commodity 
Flow Survey which had just come out last year that 75 percent 
of all the product shipments in the United States are carried 
by truck, which means that the Nation's economy is 
overwhelmingly dependent on highways for transportation.
    In Alabama, the figures show that the State's economy is 
even more dependent on highways than most of the rest of the 
Nation. In this State, 82.6 percent----
    Senator Shelby. Why is that? Go ahead, Mr. Buechner.
    Mr. Buechner. Well, that is a good question. It is just--it 
is a good question, and I don't know that I can answer it. It 
may be the product composition and it may be the availability 
of alternatives, but I expect it is the product composition.
    Senator Shelby. That lends itself to surface 
transportation?
    Mr. Buechner. To truck transportation.
    And there are only six other States that are more dependent 
on highway transportation to ship their States' products to 
market than Alabama. And I will just--Arkansas, North and South 
Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Those are the only 
six States that depend more on highway transportation than 
Alabama does.
    Senator Shelby. And what are the others? Rail and air and 
water?
    Mr. Buechner. Rail and air and ports, water shipment.
    The reason why highways are so important is the effect that 
they have on cost savings and productivity growth for a State's 
business firms. About one-quarter of the growth in productivity 
after World War II is attributable to the expansion of our 
highway system, particularly the interstates.
    What this means is that firms, having access to good roads, 
enjoy a cost and productivity advantage over those that do not. 
High transportation costs limit the size of a firm's market, 
which means that it cannot take advantage of the low cost and 
economy of scales that occur as a firm's volume of output 
grows. It takes the ability to produce for a national market to 
achieve the economies of scale and low production costs that 
makes a State's economy competitive, which is why, when a new 
highway opens up, you almost always see an explosion of 
economic activity.
    So the completion of Corridor X should provide a strong 
platform for significant economic growth and development in 
northwestern Alabama.
    There is another aspect of highway investment that is often 
overlooked which is that highway investments are investments 
that last for generations. The Commerce Department has just 
released its most recent figures on the fixed reproducible 
tangible assets of the United States, and they show that the 
economic life of a typical highway is 67 years before it has to 
be replaced. There is no other productive investment that lasts 
that long. Office buildings, commercial buildings, factories, 
30 to 40 years, equipment 10 to 15 years, even computers like 3 
to 5 years before they have to be replaced. The only other 
asset in the American economy that lasts so long is personal 
homes.
    So it does not mean that highways do not have to be 
maintained any more than it means that homes do not have to be 
maintained. What it means is that when you build a highway, you 
are building a productive asset that will last for three or 
four generations.
    Finally, I want to say some words about safety to 
complement some of the comments that were made earlier.
    The United States has one of the safest highway systems in 
the world. ARTBA is about to publish a major study on highway 
safety. We find that since the early 1950's, the fatality rate 
on U.S. highways has declined from 7 fatalities per 100 million 
miles traveled to 1.7. About a 75-percent decline.
    If we had the same fatality rate today as we had in the 
early 1950's, more than 165,000 people a year would be killed 
on the Nation's highways today rather than 42,000.
    The available evidence--I mean, there are lots of reasons 
for this, seatbelts, higher drinking age, improvements in 
automobile design. But the available evidence suggests that 
much of the improvement in highway safety during the past 40 
years has been due to investment in building safer highways.
    During the 1950's, most of our travel was on two-lane 
roads. These roads are much less safe than interstate quality 
highways. Even today, the fatality rate on local, rural two-
lane highways is about five times the rate on interstate 
highways.
    The good part of the reason for the decline in the fatality 
rate has been the shift in travel from unsafe roads to safe 
roads. The investment in highway improvements that we have made 
during the last 40 years, we calculate, has saved more than 2 
million lives.
    Looking at Alabama, we find some very interesting 
juxtaposition here. Alabama in 1996 had a fatality rate that 
was one-third higher than the national average.
    Senator Shelby. Say that again.
    Mr. Buechner. The fatality rate per 100,000 vehicle-miles 
traveled in Alabama was one-third higher than the national 
average. This is Federal Highway Administration data.
    Senator Shelby. Were we the highest in the Nation?
    Mr. Buechner. Not the highest, seventh highest.
    Senator Shelby. Who was the highest? Oh, boy, seventh 
highest?
    Mr. Buechner. Seventh highest.
    Senator Shelby. OK.
    Mr. Buechner. For fatalities.
    At the other side----
    Senator Shelby. If you will furnish that data for the 
record.
    Mr. Buechner. Pardon?
    Senator Shelby. If you will furnish that.
    Mr. Buechner. I will supply that, yes.
    At the other end, it had a nonfatal rate about two-thirds 
of the national average, which means accidents without 
fatalities much lower than the rest of the country, the fifth 
lowest.
    And so what that suggests is that Alabama's drivers are 
among the safest in the Nation, but when they get into an 
accident, they are far more likely to be killed than drivers in 
other parts of the country.
    In our view, the main culprit is the composition of the 
roads that Alabama drivers use. It is not that Alabama's roads 
are worse than anyone else's, it is that in Alabama there is a 
much smaller percentage of the total road mileage is interstate 
quality and a much higher percentage is the two-lane, rural 
roads.
    And as a result, Alabamians do much less of their driving 
on interstate-quality roads, which have one-fifth the fatality 
rate as drivers in the rest of the Nation. In Alabama, 20 
percent of vehicle-miles traveled are on interstate or 
interstate-quality roads, the rest of the country is 30 
percent.
    So Alabamians appear to have a higher fatality rate because 
they do more of their travel on roads that are not as safe and 
are not as forgiving when an accident occurs than drivers in 
the rest of the country.
    So expanding the system of interstate-quality roads in 
Alabama by completing projects like Corridor X should not only 
have a beneficial impact on the economic growth and development 
of the northwestern part of the State, it should also have a 
big impact on highway safety and help save the lives of many 
Alabamians in the years to come.

                           prepared statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Buechner. We have your 
written statement and it will be made part of the record.
    [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of William R. Buechner
    My name is William Buechner and I am the director of economics and 
research for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
    Mr. Chairman, before I begin my statement, I would like express the 
appreciation of ARTBA and our members for your leadership in expanding 
federal investment in highways, particularly the large increase 
provided for fiscal year 1998 in last year's appropriations bill. Your 
leadership has been instrumental in getting us where we are today, and 
that is widely recognized and appreciated by our members.
    ARTBA is a national association with more than 4,000 members from 
every segment of the transportation construction industry with an 
interest in federal investment in transportation infrastructure 
programs. We have 32 state chapters, including a long-time affiliation 
with the Alabama Road Builders, one of our strongest state chapters. I 
have a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University and I served for 22 
years as a senior economist with the Joint Economic Committee of 
Congress before joining ARTBA, where I helped Committee members set up 
more than 300 hearings. This, however, is my first opportunity to 
appear as a witness before a Congressional committee and I am honored 
that it is before your committee and on such an important subject.
    I want to thank you very much for this opportunity to testify on 
the economic benefits of highway investment, and I hope my comments 
will be useful as you evaluate the potential benefits of the Corridor X 
project.
    During the past year and a half, ARTBA has been conducting research 
into the economic impact of transportation investment, particularly 
investment in highways, and we want to present some of the findings 
here this morning.
    Highways benefit a state two ways. The first is the short-term 
stimulus to the local economy from highway construction. The second is 
the long-term benefit as the new highway facilitates new business and 
expands the access of local firms to a larger market.
    The transportation construction industry is a major American 
industry and a major source of jobs.
    Designing, building, maintaining and managing the nation's 
transportation infrastructure is a $140 billion industry, and more than 
60 percent of those expenditures are for highways. To get a sense of 
the size of this industry and its economic importance, it is almost 50 
percent larger than the entire farming sector, whose total output in 
1997, according to the national income and product accounts, was $94 
billion. The total value of the services of all the lawyers in the 
country was $105 billion. The total output of the electronics industry, 
which includes the computer industry, was about $150 billion, virtually 
the same size as the transportation construction industry.
    Transportation construction is an industry that employs 1.6 million 
people. Many of these jobs are with the private contractors who do the 
actual construction, but equally important are the jobs created in 
state and local transportation departments to maintain and manage the 
highways, and jobs in the industries that supply materials and services 
to the highway contractors.
    In Alabama, transportation construction employs over 27,000 people, 
again most in the design, construction, maintenance and management of 
the state's highway system. That is about 1.5 percent of all of the 
jobs on nonfarm payrolls in Alabama, which is above the national 
average of 1.3 percent. In general, these are well-paid jobs, with 
average hourly earnings about 20 to 40 percent higher than those in 
other sectors of the economy.
    And according to the Federal Highway Administration, each $1 
billion of highway investment generates a total of 42,100 jobs, 
including the jobs at the construction site, the jobs in the supplier 
industries, and jobs that are induced by the increased economic 
activity. The cost to complete Corridor X is apparently in the range of 
$700 million, which means that at the peak of construction the number 
of new jobs created will approximate 10,000, including the jobs in 
supplier industries and the jobs generated as the new workers spend 
their wages in Alabama.
    But even more important for a state like Alabama is the long-term 
impact that a project like Corridor X can have on the state's economy.
    Last year, ARTBA published a study on the importance of the federal 
highway program to the economic prosperity of the individual states. We 
used data from the 1993 commodity flow survey, which had just been 
released by the Department of Transportation, to determine how much 
each state's economy depended on highway transportation to ship their 
products. This survey covered all shipments of products at both the 
factory and wholesale level, except for raw agricultural products.
    We found that 75.1 percent of all product shipments in the United 
States are carried by truck, when measured by value of shipment. This 
means the nation's economy is overwhelmingly dependent on highways to 
transport freight from producer to destination. For years, advocates of 
highway investment have been saying that a strong economy depends on a 
first-class highway system. These data show just how important highways 
are, and I would like to submit a copy of the study for the hearing 
record.
    For Alabama, the figures show that the state's economy is even more 
dependent on highways than most of the rest of the nation. 82.6 percent 
of the state's products are shipped by truck. In 1993, total product 
shipments by the Alabama economy came to $88.8 billion (with the strong 
growth in the economy since then, that figure would be above $100 
billion today). Of that total, $73.4 billion was transported by truck. 
Only six other states are more dependent on highway transportation to 
get their products to market than Alabama--Arkansas, North and South 
Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Wisconsin--which indicates the 
potential importance of a project like Corridor X to the state's 
economy.
    Economists have known for more than a decade and a half that 
investment in highways, particularly the core Interstate and National 
Highway System, has been an important source of cost savings and 
productivity growth for the nation's private business firms. A recent 
study by New York University for the Federal Highway Administration 
attributes about one-quarter of the growth of productivity after World 
War II to the expansion of our highway system.
    What this means is that firms having access to good roads enjoy a 
cost and productivity advantage over those that don't. High 
transportation costs limit the size of a firm's market, which means it 
can't take advantage of the low costs and economies of scale that occur 
as a firm's volume of output grows. It takes the ability to produce for 
a national market to achieve the economies of scale and low production 
costs that make a state's economy competitive. When a new highway 
opens, there is almost always an explosion of economic activity as 
firms previously limited by inadequate roads now have access to a much 
larger market and can take advantage of economies of scale that simply 
weren't possible in a small local market.
    The Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 recognized this 
even without the recent studies when it authorized construction of a 
new highway network that would connect the isolated and underdeveloped 
parts of Appalachia with the rest of the nation's economy. The act 
recognized that these highways ``will open up an area or areas with a 
developmental potential where commerce and communication have been 
inhibited by lack of adequate access.''
    More recently, studies by the Appalachian Regional Commission, 
referred to in a recent floor statement by Senator Byrd, have found 
that ``it is almost impossible for communities still awaiting 
completion of their segments of these highways to attract businesses 
and investment opportunities to their areas, largely due to an 
inadequate transportation system inhibiting their access to the 
national markets.''
    Completion of the Corridor X project should provide a strong 
platform for significant economic growth and development in 
northwestern Alabama.
    There is another aspect of highway investment that is often 
overlooked, which is that highways are investments that last for 
generations. Late last year, the Commerce Department released its most 
recent figures on the fixed reproducible tangible assets of the United 
States. The data showed that the useful economic life of a typical 
highway is 67 years before it has to be torn up and replaced. No other 
productive investment lasts as long. Office buildings and factories, 
for example, have an average useful life of 41 years and 32 years 
respectively. The only asset that lasts longer is personal homes. This 
doesn't mean a highway won't require any maintenance during those 67 
years, any more than it means a home won't need maintenance. What it 
does mean is that a highway once built will benefit the economy for 
three or four generations before it has to be rebuilt.
    I would also like to say a few words about the contribution of 
highway investment to safety.
    The United States has one of the safest highway systems in the 
world. Since the early 1950's, the fatality rate on U.S. highways has 
declined from 7.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled to 
1.7 in 1996. If we had the same fatality rate today as we had then, 
more than 165,000 people would be dying in highway accidents each year, 
rather than 42,000. The injury rate has also declined significantly, by 
more than half.
    Some of the decline in highway fatalities has been due to the 
increased use of seatbelts and air bags, the higher drinking age and 
reduced drunk driving, and improvements in automobile design. But the 
available evidence suggests that much of the improvement in highway 
safety during the past 40 years has been due to investment in safer 
highways.
    During the 1950's, virtually all travel in the United States was on 
2-lane roads. These roads are much less safe than Interstate quality 
highways. For example, the fatality rate on rural local roads in 1996 
was 3.67 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, compared to 0.76 on 
the Interstate Highway System--almost five times as dangerous. The 
interstates and similar highways have much wider lanes, better 
visibility, wide shoulders, directional dividers, and a variety of 
other safety features that make them far more forgiving even at high 
speeds than 2-lane and unimproved four-lane roads.
    Today, over thirty percent of all vehicle miles traveled are on the 
Interstate Highways and Interstate-quality roads. This shift in travel 
from relatively unsafe to relatively safe roads has been a major 
contributor to the reduction in the highway fatality rate since the 
early 1950's. Our nation's investment in highway improvements during 
the past 40 years has saved more than 2 million lives.
    Looking at Alabama, Alabama in 1996 had a fatality rate that was 
one-third higher than the national average but, at the same time, it 
had a non-fatal accident rate that was less than two-thirds of the 
national average. Alabama, in fact, had the seventh-highest fatality 
rate among the states, but the fifth-lowest accident rate. These 
figures suggest that Alabama's drivers are among the safest in the 
country, but when they get into an accident they are far more likely to 
be killed than in other parts of the country.
    I think the main culprit is the composition of Alabama's roads. The 
number of miles of Interstate and Interstate-quality highways in 
Alabama is a much smaller fraction of total highway mileage than in the 
rest of the nation--less than one percent in Alabama compared to almost 
one-and-one-half percent in the rest of the country--and, as a result, 
Alabamans do much less of their driving on Interstate quality roads 
than drivers in the rest of the nation--20 percent versus 30 percent.
    Alabamans thus appear to have a higher fatality rate because they 
do more of their travel on roads that are not as safe and are less 
forgiving when an accident occurs than drivers in the rest of the 
country. ARTBA's research indicates that every $9,000 invested by the 
federal government in highway construction and improvements during the 
post-war period eliminated one non-fatal injury and every $320,000 
saved a life.
    Expanding the system of Interstate-quality roads in Alabama by 
completing projects like Corridor X should not only have a beneficial 
impact on the economic growth and development of the northwestern part 
of the state, it should also have a big impact on highway safety and 
help save the lives of many Alabamans in the years to come.
    Mr. Chairman, I hope this information is useful to you and I will 
be happy to answer any questions.
                                 ______
                                 
 The Road to Prosperity: The Importance of the Federal Highway Program 
            to the Economic Prosperity of Individual States

    (A study prepared by the Economics and Research Division of the 
         American Road and Transportation Builders Association)

                           executive summary
    During the past decade, numerous studies have demonstrated that 
public investment in highways has contributed significantly to the 
nation's economic growth by lowering transportation costs and 
increasing private sector productivity. Although creation of the 
Federal-aid highway program by Congress preceded this research by some 
decades, this important federal program is clearly built on the 
recognition that a good highway system is a critical component of a 
healthy economy.
    State governments are also well aware that highways make an 
important contribution to a healthy state economy by lowering 
transportation costs within the state and providing efficient 
transportation for state residents. But the federal-aid highway program 
is under attack, despite its proven contribution to the nation's 
economic growth and prosperity. Serious proposals have been made that 
would withdraw our government's long-standing commitment to build and 
maintain a high quality national highway system. The ultimate example 
of the threat is a bill introduced by Senator Connie Mack (R-FL) and 
Congressman John Kasich (R-OH) to dismantle most of the federal-aid 
highway program and turn most highway responsibilities over to the 
states.
    One factor contributing to this attack on the federal highway 
program is that little information exists on how much each state's 
economy depends on the transportation services provided by highways, 
particularly highways located in other states. What fraction of each 
state's products is shipped by truck over highways? How much is shipped 
only on its own highways and how much is shipped over the highways of 
other states? How vulnerable is each state's economy to highway 
decisions made by policymakers in other states?
    The purpose of this study is to determine how much the economy of 
each state depends on out-of-state highways, i.e., our national system 
of highways. The importance of highways to state economies can be 
measured by the percent of the state's products shipped by truck. 
Products shipped entirely within a state use only the state's own 
highway system. Products shipped to destinations in other states by 
truck depend on out-of-state highways and thus benefit from a national 
system. Based on data from the 1993 Commodity Flow Survey, this study 
uses the percent of a state's products shipped to out-of-state markets 
by truck to measure the state's economic benefit from a national 
highway system.
    Figure 1 illustrates that state economies depend heavily on 
highways, and out-of-state highways in particular, to ship their 
products. The study findings include:
  --Nationwide, 75.1 percent of the value of products are shipped by 
        truck, while 24.9 percent use some other mode such as rail or 
        air or a multi-modal combination.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ When measured by tons or ton-miles, the truck share is smaller, 
largely because other modes like rail carry more high-weight but low-
value products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  --One third of products by value are shipped by truck entirely within 
        the originating state and thus depend only on the state's own 
        highway system for transportation.
  --Almost 42 percent of the total value of products are shipped out-
        of-state by truck and thus depend on the highways of other 
        states. This means the economies of the individual states, on 
        average, rely even more heavily on out-of-state highways, or 
        the ``national'' highway system, to ship products to their 
        ultimate markets than on their own highways.
  --Some states are more dependent than others on highway 
        transportation to move their products. The attached table 
        summarizes the importance of highways to the economies of the 
        individual states. In the table, the states are ranked 
        according to their dependence on the national highway system, 
        as measured by the percent of the state's products that are 
        shipped out-of-state by truck.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA16.001
        

                                      STATE ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON HIGHWAYS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Percent of all State products shipped by truck
                                                                      ranked by percent shipped out-of-State
                              State                              -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   Out-of-State      In-State          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas........................................................            63.1            24.5            87.6
Tennessee.......................................................            62.5            21.4            84.0
South Carolina..................................................            59.0            27.7            86.7
Mississippi.....................................................            58.0            24.2            82.2
Delaware........................................................            56.4            13.9            70.3
Nevada..........................................................            56.2            24.4            80.5
Kentucky........................................................            56.0            21.2            77.2
Rhode Island....................................................            55.8            16.9            72.8
Connecticut.....................................................            54.9            18.1            73.0
Georgia.........................................................            53.9            30.8            84.7
Kansas..........................................................            53.6            21.5            75.0
Indiana.........................................................            53.5            23.8            77.3
Maryland........................................................            53.4            27.4            80.8
Nebraska........................................................            53.3            27.0            80.3
North Carolina..................................................            52.7            34.3            87.1
New Jersey......................................................            52.7            25.5            78.2
Wisconsin.......................................................            52.6            31.2            83.8
Alabama.........................................................            52.4            30.3            82.6
Pennsylvania....................................................            50.0            30.6            80.6
Missouri........................................................            49.6            22.9            72.5
lowa............................................................            48.9            31.4            80.3
Virginia........................................................            48.1            33.1            81.3
West Virginia...................................................            47.3            17.6            64.9
New Hampshire...................................................            47.2            19.6            66.8
Illinois........................................................            46.6            28.0            74.6
Ohio............................................................            45.3            31.6            76.9
South Dakota....................................................            44.7            35.5            80.1
Maine...........................................................            44.1            30.5            74.6
Massachusetts...................................................            43.6            28.4            72.0
Idaho...........................................................            43.0            27.5            70.5
Vermont.........................................................            42.5            32.4            75.0
New York........................................................            41.4            34.6            76.0
Utah............................................................            40.5            29.2            69.7
Oklahoma........................................................            39.4            28.8            68.2
Minnesota.......................................................            37.8            32.9            70.7
Colorado........................................................            37.3            37.2            74.6
Michigan........................................................            35.1            41.9            76.9
Arizona.........................................................            34.8            37.4            72.2
North Dakota....................................................            31.1            32.2            63.2
Oregon..........................................................            30.8            33.4            64.3
Washington......................................................            25.7            39.0            64.7
New Mexico......................................................            25.7            39.8            65.5
Texas...........................................................            24.6            43.7            68.3
Louisiana.......................................................            22.0            26.5            48.5
Florida.........................................................            21.8            55.9            77.6
California......................................................            21.2            46.3            67.5
Montana.........................................................            19.6            42.1            61.7
Wyoming.........................................................            12.9            16.9            29.8
Alaska..........................................................             0.6            44.1            44.7
Hawaii..........................................................  ..............            61.4            61.4
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      U.S. average..............................................            41.6            33.4            75.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. DOT. 1993 Commodity Flow Survey, Tables 1 and 8.

  --Arkansas is the most highway-dependent state, shipping more than 87 
        percent of its products by truck. Another 14 states--led by 
        North and South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia--ship 80 
        percent of their products by highway, while only three states--
        Wyoming, Alaska, and Louisiana--ship less than half of their 
        products by highway.
  --Arkansas is also the state most dependent on national highways, 
        shipping 63 percent of its products by truck out of state, 
        followed by Tennessee, South Carolina, and Mississippi. 
        Altogether, 19 states ship more than 50 percent of their 
        products by truck on out-of-state highways.
    The core strategy for reauthorization of the Federal highway 
program should be to preserve and strengthen the national highway 
system, since the economic prosperity of the vast majority of states 
depends even more on out-of-state highways than on in-state highways. 
Devolving the highway program to the states would be self-defeating in 
the long run even for states whose own resources for highways might 
exceed their share of federal highway funds, if higher transportation 
costs and limited access to markets for the state's products resulted 
from a deterioration in the quality of the nation's highway system. 
Ultimately, the state's output and income would fall below the 
potential that could be attained with an excellent national highway 
system.
    In economic terms, the goal of federal highway funding should be to 
allocate resources in such a way as to maximize the national benefit 
from the highway system. This means looking at our national highways as 
a single unit and allocating federal resources wherever they are needed 
to yield the best possible national system. What each state should do 
is ask what kind of highway system is necessary for maximizing the 
state's economic prosperity--by minimizing the transportation cost and 
maximizing the market penetration of the products made in the state, to 
both in-state and out-of-state markets. Each state should then work 
toward a distribution of federal highway funds that achieves this goal.
                          about the author \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Mr. Felix Ammah-Tagoe of the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics provided valuable comments. Any remaining errors are my own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. William R. Buechner is director of economics and research for 
the American Road and Transportation Builders Association in 
Washington, D.C. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University 
and was senior economist for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress 
for 22 years. Dr. Buechner can be reached for questions or comments at 
202-289-4434 or via e-mail at [email protected].
        introduction--the threat to the nation's highway system
    During the past decade, numerous studies have demonstrated that 
public investment in highways has contributed significantly to the 
nation's economic growth by lowering transportation costs and 
increasing private sector productivity. Although creation of the 
Federal-aid highway program by Congress preceded this research by some 
decades, this important federal program is clearly built on the 
recognition that a good highway system is a critical component of a 
healthy economy.
    State governments are also well aware that highways make an 
important contribution to a healthy state economy. Good highways 
attract businesses to a state by reducing the cost of transporting raw 
materials and products. Highways will become even more critical to 
state economic performance as companies increase their use of just-in-
time and other cost-cutting logistics. The quality of a state's highway 
system also has a significant impact on workers and consumers, 
particularly as it affects the economic cost of delays and congestion 
and the safety of highway users. In addition, a good highway system can 
help improve the environment, since cars are at their least efficient 
burning fuel when idling in traffic jams. From almost every 
perspective, highways are the catalyst that make a state's economy go.
    Building and maintaining highways costs money. A significant part 
of this comes from the federal government--financed by the federal 
gasoline tax and other highway user fees. Each time the motorist pulls 
up to the gasoline pump, twelve cents per gallon of the price goes into 
the Highway Trust Fund.\3\ This is distributed back to the states 
according to a complex formula for investment in highways. Currently, 
the funding level for the federal highway program is almost $20 billion 
a year. The only federal program distributing more money to the states 
is Medicaid. Although the President's budget for fiscal year 1998 calls 
for keeping Federal outlays for highways just under $20 billion per 
year through fiscal year 2002, ARTBA and its allies in the 
transportation construction industry--as well as many influential 
members of Congress--are urging a substantial increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Although the federal gasoline tax is 18.3 cents per gallon, 2 
cents per gallon goes into the Highway Trust Fund to be used for mass 
transit and 4.3 cents per gallon is diverted into the Treasury's 
general fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The federal-aid highway program, however, is under attack, despite 
its proven contribution to the nation's economic growth and prosperity. 
The current law authorizing the federal-aid program--the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)--expires on September 30, 
1997. A new law must be enacted in order for the program to continue 
into fiscal year 1998 and beyond.
    While most Members of Congress support reauthorization of the 
federal program, serious proposals have been made that would withdraw 
our government's long-standing commitment to build and maintain a high 
quality national highway system. The ultimate example of the threat is 
a bill introduced by Senator Connie Mack (R-FL) and Congressman John 
Kasich (R-OH) to dismantle most of the federal-aid highway program and 
turn most highway responsibilities over to the states. Most of the 
federal highway gasoline tax would be repealed, leaving highway funding 
decisions up to individual states. Less radical approaches that have 
also gained advocates would turn large parts of the federal highway 
program into a block grant that states could use for highway needs as 
they wish.
          economic importance of highways to state prosperity
    What such proposals overlook is the economic importance of a 
nation-wide highway system and how much each state's economic 
prosperity depends on the transportation services provided by highways, 
especially those that lay beyond its own boundaries. While a top-
quality highway system is essential to a state's economic prosperity, 
no state economy could survive without access to markets throughout the 
rest of the country. Not only are top-quality highways in other states 
an essential element of state economic prosperity, for some states, in 
fact, data suggest that out-of-state highways may be even more 
important for the state's economic prosperity than the state's own 
highways. In this case, a state may find that the benefits of higher 
investment in the national highway system could greatly exceed the 
benefits of a ``better'' distribution formula for federal highway 
funds. But no state could be expected to recognize the importance of 
investment in a national highway system without information about the 
contribution of highway transportation to the state's economy.
    The purpose of this study is to determine how much the economy of 
each state depends on out-of-state highways, i.e., our national system 
of highways. The study addresses a number of questions that bear on 
this issue: What fraction of each state's products is shipped by truck? 
How much is shipped only on its own highways and how much is shipped 
over the highways of other states? How vulnerable is each state's 
economy to highway decisions made by policymakers in other states?
    There are numerous ways products can be shipped--by rail, air, 
barge, truck or some combination. The basic indicator used by this 
study to measure the contribution of highways to state prosperity is 
the percent of the state's products by value that are shipped by 
truck.\4\ This overall measure of the importance of highways is then 
allocated into two parts--the percent of shipments carried by trucks 
that begin and end entirely within the same state and the percent that 
begin in one state and end in another. This division makes it possible 
to measure the importance of out-of-state highways to each state's 
economy. Products shipped by truck entirely within a state are carried 
only on the state's own highways and don't use out-of-state highways. 
Products shipped by truck to destinations in other states, by contrast, 
require the use of out-of-state highways and thus benefit from a 
national system. For this study, the percent of a state's total 
shipments that are carried to out-of-state markets by truck serves to 
measure the state's benefits from the existence of a national highway 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ While value of shipments by truck provides the best measure of 
the contribution of highways to state economic prosperity, ton-miles 
shipped by truck would provide a better indicator of highway needs, 
including both initial pavement requirements and subsequent maintenance 
expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The data for this study were drawn from the 1993 Commodity Flow 
Survey, which the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Bureau of 
the Census conducts every five years as part of the Economic Census 
program. For each state, the Commodity Flow Survey provides detailed 
information on total shipments by establishments in mining, 
manufacturing, wholesale, and selected retail and service industries by 
mode of transportation and by destination.\5\ These data were used to 
compute for each state the percent of all products shipped by truck, 
both to in-state destinations and to out-of-state destinations. These 
results were used to measure the contribution of highway transportation 
to each state's economic prosperity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The Commodity Flow Survey does not cover shipments of raw 
agricultural products from farm to processing plants like grain 
elevators, but does cover shipments of food and kindred products from 
processing plants through the manufacturing, wholesale and retail 
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           state economic dependence on truck transportation
    Table 1 shows that the vast majority of states are heavily 
dependent on highway truck transportation for product shipments. For 
each state, Table 1 reports (1) the total value of product shipments 
originating in the state, (2) the total value of products shipped by 
truck, and (3) the percent of products shipped by truck. Table 1 lists 
states in descending order according to the percent of products shipped 
by truck.
    Table 1 shows that, but for three states, more than 60 percent of 
each state's products by value are shipped by truck and thus depend on 
highways as the mode of transportation. This ranges from a low of 29.8 
percent for Wyoming to a high of 87.6 percent for Arkansas. For the 
nation as a whole, 75.1 percent of products by value are shipped over 
highways. This means that only one-quarter of products by value in this 
country are shipped by a mode of transportation other than truck, such 
as rail or air.
    Table 1 does not include products shipped by truck-based multi-
modal systems, such as truck-rail or truck-air, or the truck share of 
parcel post and courier services, because the truck share of these 
forms of shipments is not split out. In addition, shipments by 
governments are not covered by the Commodity Flow Survey. The tables in 
this study thus present the minimal or most conservative measure of the 
contribution of highway-based transportation to state economies.

                                 TABLE 1.--STATE ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON HIGHWAYS
                                 [Percent of State's products shipped by truck]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Ranked by percent shipped by truck
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                  Total value of      Value shipped by truck
                              State                                   product    -------------------------------
                                                                     shipments
                                                                    (millions)       (Million)       (Percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas........................................................         $66,954         $58,661            87.6
North Carolina..................................................         209,398         182,302            87.1
South Carolina..................................................          83,621          72,531            86.7
Georgia.........................................................         210,143         177,921            84.7
Tennessee.......................................................         170,056         142,788            84.0
Wisconsin.......................................................         143,318         120,103            83.8
Alabama.........................................................          88,845          73,412            82.6
Mississippi.....................................................          56,268          46,263            82.2
Virginia........................................................         114,590          93,116            81.3
Maryland........................................................          98,508          79,553            80.8
Pennsylvania....................................................         248,758         200,525            80.6
Nevada..........................................................          19,597          15,785            80.5
Nebraska........................................................          42,534          34,168            80.3
Iowa............................................................          79,900          64,169            80.3
South Dakota....................................................           9,585           7,682            80.1
New Jersey......................................................         252,790         197,627            78.2
Florida.........................................................         172,045         133,567            77.6
Indiana.........................................................         178,704         138,203            77.3
Kentucky........................................................         112,047          86,546            77.2
Michigan........................................................         256,289         197,153            76.9
Ohio............................................................         325,626         250,395            76.9
New York........................................................         261,894         199,006            76.0
Kansas..........................................................          70,519          52,923            75.0
Vermont.........................................................           8,599           6,445            75.0
Illinois........................................................         346,604         258,562            74.6
Colorado........................................................          58,765          43,816            74.6
Maine...........................................................          20,233          15,085            74.6
Connecticut.....................................................          71,357          52,075            73.0
Rhode Island....................................................          19,475          14,174            72.8
Missouri........................................................         136,929          99,285            72.5
Arizona.........................................................          68,569          49,497            72.2
Massachusetts...................................................         111,722          80,467            72.0
Minnesota.......................................................         110,180          77,928            70.7
Idaho...........................................................          16,518          11,645            70.5
Delaware........................................................          16,140          11,340            70.3
Utah............................................................          35,599          24,818            69.7
Texas...........................................................         451,847         308,561            68.3
Oklahoma........................................................          48,702          33,214            68.2
California......................................................         638,523         430,764            67.5
New Hampshire...................................................          16,465          11,002            66.8
New Mexico......................................................          11,794           7,721            65.5
West Virginia...................................................          34,924          22,673            64.9
Washington......................................................         123,245          79,757            64.7
Oregon..........................................................          81,939          52,661            64.3
North Dakota....................................................          10,528           6,657            63.2
Montana.........................................................          10,167           6,272            61.7
Hawaii..........................................................          11,462           7,033            61.4
Louisiana.......................................................          96,194          46,621            48.5
Alaska..........................................................           8,120           3,631            44.7
Wyoming.........................................................           9,012           2,690            29.8
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      U.S. total................................................       5,845,601       4,388,793            75.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. DOT. 1993 Commodity Flow Survey. Table 1.

    The fact that 75 percent of products by value are shipped to their 
destination by truck does not mean these products require highway 
transportation. Most could probably be shipped by some other mode if 
the appropriate highways did not exist or were too costly. But for-
profit companies generally choose the least-costly mode of 
transportation to move their products to market. The current evidence 
indicates that for 75 percent of products the least-cost mode of 
transportation is by truck over the nation's highways. While other 
modes could ultimately deliver these products to their destinations, 
the transportation costs would be higher and our national standard of 
living would thus be lower.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ This would not be the case if highway transportation were 
subsidized more heavily than other modes of transportation. But 
highways are generally financed by user fees such as taxes on gasoline 
and diesel fuels, tolls, etc. If subsidies for highways exist, they 
would be relevant only in comparison with subsidies for other modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       state dependence on in-state versus out-of-state highways
    The next question is how much each state makes use of the national 
highway system to ship products to markets beyond the state's own 
borders. To estimate the dependence of state economies on a national 
highway system, this study break each state's total highway use into 
two categories according to the final destination of the product--(1) 
products shipped entirely within the originating state and (2) products 
shipped to other states.
    This study assumes that products shipped entirely within the 
originating state make use only of highways lying within the state's 
boundaries. If we assume that each state has a goal of maximizing state 
output and income by providing the least costly system for transporting 
products within the state, the states alone could be responsible for 
highways since each state would develop a highway system that is 
optimal for the needs of its own state economy. There is no apparent 
role for the federal government in building or funding highways to 
facilitate product movements that occur entirely within individual 
states. The final result--fifty separate state highway systems--would 
be optimal for the nation, however, only if each state were a closed 
economy, that is with no shipments of products to or from other states.
    Table 2 shows how much of each state's economy consists of products 
that are shipped entirely within the state. In addition to data on the 
total value of all shipments from the first column of Table 1, Table 2 
presents data for each state on (2) the value of products shipped 
entirely within-state, (3) the value of products shipped within-state 
by truck and (4) the percent of all products shipped within-state by 
truck.
    The final column in Table 2 thus provides an estimate of the 
fraction of each state's economy that operates using just the state's 
own highway system. For most states, this amounts to only a fraction of 
the state's current value of product shipments.

                             TABLE 2.--STATE ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON INSTATE HIGHWAYS
                             [Percent of State's products shipped in-State by truck]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Value of products       In-State
                                                                               shipped in-State       shipments
                                                              Total value -------------------------- by truck as
                            State                              of product                             percent of
                                                               shipments      Total       By truck      total
                                                               (millions)   (millions)   (millions)   shipments
                                                                                                      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii......................................................      $11,462      $10,616       $7,033         61.4
Florida.....................................................      172,045      108,737       96,105         55.9
California..................................................      638,523      390,988      295,410         46.3
Alaska......................................................        8,120        6,558        3,584         44.1
Texas.......................................................      451,847      271,287      197,271         43.7
Montana.....................................................       10,167        5,389        4,276         42.1
Michigan....................................................      256,289      122,712      107,265         41.9
New Mexico..................................................       11,794        5,700        4,694         39.8
Washington..................................................      123,245       68,745       48,125         39.0
Arizona.....................................................       68,569       29,272       25,627         37.4
Colorado....................................................       58,765       24,898       21,873         37.2
South Dakota................................................        9,585        3,839        3,402         35.5
New York....................................................      261,894      107,813       90,685         34.6
North Carolina..............................................      209,398       79,789       71,847         34.3
Oregon......................................................       81,939       33,992       27,395         33.4
Virginia....................................................      114,590       41,861       37,963         33.1
Minnesota...................................................      110,180       44,081       36,245         32.9
Vermont.....................................................        8,599        2,940        2,787         32.4
North Dakota................................................       10,528        3,948        3,388         32.2
Ohio........................................................      325,626      121,973      102,954         31.6
Iowa........................................................       79,900       28,082       25,108         31.4
Wisconsin...................................................      143,318       50,305       44,735         31.2
Georgia.....................................................      210,143       69,671       64,621         30.8
Pennsylvania................................................      248,758       87,707       76,031         30.6
Maine.......................................................       20,233        6,972        6,165         30.5
Alabama.....................................................       88,845       30,050       26,878         30.3
Utah........................................................       35,599       12,900       10,408         29.2
Oklahoma....................................................       48,702       16,783       14,016         28.8
Massachusetts...............................................      111,722       37,469       31,708         28.4
Illinois....................................................      346,604      117,910       97,218         28.0
South Carolina..............................................       83,621       25,512       23,168         27.7
Idaho.......................................................       16,518        5,256        4,550         27.5
Maryland....................................................       98,508       30,521       26,984         27.4
Nebraska....................................................       42,534       12,357       11,477         27.0
Louisiana...................................................       96,194       47,385       25,500         26.5
New Jersey..................................................      252,790       79,196       64,413         25.5
Arkansas....................................................       66,954       17,584       16,434         24.5
Nevada......................................................       19,597        5,081        4,776         24.4
Mississippi.................................................       56,268       16,174       13,644         24.2
Indiana.....................................................      178,704       50,699       42,545         23.8
Missouri....................................................      136,929       36,318       31,356         22.9
Kansas......................................................       70,519       17,839       15,128         21.5
Tennessee...................................................      170,056       43,550       36,450         21.4
Kentucky....................................................      112,047       27,314       23,748         21.2
New Hampshire...............................................       16,465        3,651        3,233         19.6
Connecticut.................................................       71,357       14,820       12,896         18.1
West Virginia...............................................       34,924        8,874        6,163         17.6
Rhode Island................................................       19,475        4,062        3,298         16.9
Wyoming.....................................................        9,012        2,630        1,524         16.9
Delaware....................................................       16,140        2,388        2,240         13.9
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      U.S. total............................................    5,845,601    2,394,198    1,954,344         33.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. DOT. 1993 Commodity Flow Survey, Tables 1 and 8.

    Table 2 shows that, nationwide, just one-third of all products by 
value are shipped entirely within the originating state by truck. This 
ranges from a low of 13.6 percent for Delaware to a high of 61.4 
percent for Hawaii. Among mainland states, only Florida ships more than 
half of its products entirely within the state by truck. These 
shipments, since they originate and end entirely within a single state, 
do not make use of out-of-state highways. The highway systems of 
individual states would suffice.
    Product shipments by truck to other states, by contrast, require 
the use of out-of-state highways to reach their destination. 
Theoretically, it would be possible for the states acting together to 
develop highway systems to move products across state lines. This would 
be easiest, but still not easy, for states that share a common border, 
since they share a common interest in minimizing the transportation 
costs of shipping goods from producers to consumers.\7\ But it would be 
immensely difficult for the states to coordinate the development of a 
multi-state highway system which facilitates shipments among non-
adjacent states, since states have no economic interest in minimizing 
the transportation cost for shipments that neither originate nor end 
within their borders. In a federal system like ours, a strong case can 
be made that only the federal government has an interest in developing 
a national highway system that minimizes the cost of transporting goods 
among non-adjacent states.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ In theory, a highway system to accommodate flows between 
adjacent states could be developed entirely at the state level without 
federal participation. The only requirement is that both shipping and 
receiving states recognize the benefits of minimizing transportation 
costs. The shipping state would benefit from expanded markets for its 
products, thus increasing the real incomes of producers, while the 
receiving state would benefit from expanded sources of supply for 
purchasers, thus reducing prices and raising real incomes for its 
households. The same would hold true for shipments in the opposite 
direction. The results would be a mini version of the benefits from 
trade, with both producers and households in both states better off. 
The main bargaining issue between adjacent states would be the 
distribution of the costs of an integrated highway system, since that 
would affect the distribution of the net benefits between the two 
states.
    This process becomes more complex, however, when it is recognized 
that most states border more than one other state. A state highway 
system that minimizes transportation costs with one adjacent state may 
not minimize transportation costs with another adjacent state. Florida 
is a simple case, since it borders only two states. An integrated 
system that minimizes shipping costs between Florida and Georgia might 
be less than optimal between Florida and Alabama or Alabama and 
Georgia. Beyond that, Georgia would have an interest in also 
accommodating trade with North and South Carolina, while Alabama would 
also want to take into account its own economic interests in trade with 
Mississippi and Tennessee. Tennessee would face the most complex task, 
since it is bordered by eight other states, each of which is bordered 
by numerous other states. To the extent that development of integrated 
highways between adjacent states were hampered by complex relationships 
between multiple border states, their economies would be negatively 
affected.
    \8\ The most complex problems involve shipments between non-
adjacent states. While states have an economic interest in developing 
highways to transport goods to and from adjacent states, they have no 
inherent interest in shipments that neither originate or end within the 
state. Why, for example, would taxpayers in Georgia spend any of their 
own money on highways that would minimize the cost of shipping products 
from Florida producers to South Carolina markets? Why would any state 
spend its own money to facilitate trans-state shipments? States would 
augment their own state highway systems to accommodate trans-shipments 
only if they were paid to do so. But the potential costs and risks of 
leaving this up to the states indicate the need for federal involvement 
in developing a national highway system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Table 3 presents data for each state on total out-of-state 
shipments by truck, including shipments to both adjacent and non-
adjacent states, with states listed in descending order of dependence 
on out-of-state highways. This table shows how much of the economic 
activity in each state depends on the national highway system for 
access to markets in other states.
    Overall, about 42 percent of all products by value are shipped out 
of state by truck. This means that states on average are significantly 
more dependent on out-of-state highways to transport products to their 
ultimate markets than on their own state highway systems. Dependence on 
highways to transport products out of state varies from a low of 13 
percent of shipments by value for Wyoming to 63 percent for Arkansas.
    The following map, based on Table 3, suggests how much each state's 
economy could suffer if the federal government's responsibility for 
developing and maintaining a national highway system were to be 
dismantled and replaced by a system where the states were responsible 
for funding and managing their own highway systems. For 19 states, half 
or more of the state's products by value are shipped to out-of-state 
destinations by truck. The economies of these states are thus more 
dependent on the national highway system than on all other forms of 
transportation combined, including their own state highways and non-
highway-based modes such as air or rail. Any change in policy that 
could result in a deterioration of the national highway system will 
reverberate throughout their state economies, increasing the 
transportation costs for their producers and reducing their access to 
out-of-state markets. Another 19 states depend on the national highway 
system to ship a third or more of their products to out-of-state 
markets. The economies of these states would also be seriously affected 
by a deterioration of the national highway system.
                an index of national highway dependence
    As a final step in measuring the contribution of our national 
highway system to the economy of each state, Table 4 presents an index 
of national highway dependence. The index number for each state is the 
ratio of the percent of products shipped out-of-state by truck to the 
percent of products shipped within-state by truck. An index number 
greater than 1 indicates that more of the state's economy depends on 
the national highway system than on the state's own highway system for 
transportation. The higher the index number, the greater is the state's 
dependence on the national highway system. The economy of Delaware, for 
example, is four times as dependent on national highways to transport 
its products than on Delaware's own highways. Rhode Island, Connecticut 
and Tennessee are about three times as dependent on the national 
highway system as on their own highways. The Colorado economy, by 
contrast, is equally dependent on in-state and out-of-state highways, 
while only 12 states are more dependent on their own highways than on 
the national highway system. On average, state economies are 25 percent 
more dependent on the national highway system than on their own highway 
systems to ship their products.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA16.002


                         TABLE 3.--STATE ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
                           [Percent of State's products shipped out-of-State by truck]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Value of out-of-State shipments by     Out-of-
                                                                              truck                  State ship.
                                                 Total value --------------------------------------- by truck as
                     State                        of product                    To                    percent of
                                                  shipments   To adjacent  nonadjacent     Total        total
                                                  (million)      States       States     (million)    shipments
                                                               (million)    (million)                 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas.......................................      $66,954      $20,111      $22,116      $42,227         63.1
Tennessee......................................      170,056       37,367       68,971      106,338         62.5
South Carolina.................................       83,621       16,662       32,701       49,363         59.0
Mississippi....................................       56,268       10,472       22,147       32,619         58.0
Delaware.......................................       16,140        3,778        5,322        9,100         56.4
Nevada.........................................       19,597        7,315        3,694       11,009         56.2
Kentucky.......................................      112,047       26,941       35,857       62,798         56.0
Rhode Island...................................       19,475        4,196        6,680       10,876         55.8
Connecticut....................................       71,357       13,596       25,583       39,179         54.9
Georgia........................................      210,143       61,697       51,603      113,300         53.9
Kansas.........................................       70,519       11,538       26,257       37,795         53.6
Indiana........................................      178,704       46,388       49,270       95,658         53.5
Maryland.......................................       98,508       19,312       33,257       52,569         53.4
Nebraska.......................................       42,534        6,184       16,507       22,691         53.3
North Carolina.................................      209,398       36,890       73,565      110,455         52.7
New Jersey.....................................      252,790       49,300       83,914      133,214         52.7
Wisconsin......................................      143,318       29,803       45,565       75,368         52.6
Alabama........................................       88,845       17,615       28,919       46,534         52.4
Pennsylvania...................................      248,758       58,136       66,358      124,494         50.0
Missouri.......................................      136,929       26,094       41,835       67,929         49.6
Iowa...........................................       79,900       17,309       21,752       39,061         48.9
Virginia.......................................      114,590       17,795       37,358       55,153         48.1
West Virginia..................................       34,924       7,1 16        9,394       16,510         47.3
New Hampshire..................................       16,465        2,517        5,252        7,769         47.2
Illinois.......................................      346,604       48,834      112,517      161,351         46.6
Ohio...........................................      325,626       58,972       88,469      147,441         45.3
South Dakota...................................        9,585        2,078        2,202        4,280         44.7
Maine..........................................       20,233          822        8,098        8,920         44.1
Massachusetts..................................      111,722       16,894       31,865       48,759         43.6
Idaho..........................................       16,518        2,426        4,669        7,095         43.0
Vermont........................................        8,599        1,271        2,387        3,658         42.5
New York.......................................      261,894       47,668       60,653      108,321         41.4
Utah...........................................       35.599        3,585       10,825       14,410         40.5
Oklahoma.......................................       48,702        8,777       10,421       19,198         39.4
Minnesota......................................      110,180       11,834       29,849       41,683         37.8
Colorado.......................................       58,765        6,311       15,632       21,943         37.3
Michigan.......................................      256,289       28,734       61,154       89,888         35.1
Arizona........................................       68,569       12,537       11,333       23,870         34.8
North Dakota...................................       10,528        1,783        1,486        3,269         31.1
Oregon.........................................       81,939       16,641        8,625       25,266         30.8
Washington.....................................      123,245        6,868       24,764       31,632         25.7
New Mexico.....................................       11,794        1,804        1,223        3,027         25.7
Texas..........................................      451,847       26,050       85,240      111,290         24.6
Louisiana......................................       96,194        8,308       12,813       21,121         22.0
Florida........................................      172,045        7,071       30,391       37,462         21.8
California.....................................      638,523       23,893      111,461      135,354         21.2
Montana........................................       10,167          771        1,225        1,996         19.6
Wyoming........................................        9,012          663          503        1,166         12.9
Alaska.........................................        8,120            0           47           47           .6
Hawaii.........................................       11,462  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      U.S. total...............................    5,845,601      892,727    1,541,729    2,434,456         41.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. DOT. 1993 Commodity Flow Survey, Tables 1 and 8.


                                 TABLE 4.--INDEX OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEPENDENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Percent of State products       Index of
                                                                         shipped by truck            national
                              State                              --------------------------------     highway
                                                                   Out-of-State      In-State       dependence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware........................................................            56.4            13.9            4.06
Rhode Island....................................................            55.8            16.9            3.30
Connecticut.....................................................            54.9            18.1            3.04
Tennessee.......................................................            62.5            21.4            2.92
West Virginia...................................................            47.3            17.6            2.68
Kentucky........................................................            56.0            21.2            2.64
Arkansas........................................................            63.1            24.5            2.57
Kansas..........................................................            53.6            21.5            2.50
New Hampshire...................................................            47.2            19.6            2.40
Mississippi.....................................................            58.0            24.2            2.39
Nevada..........................................................            56.2            24.4            2.31
Indiana.........................................................            53.5            23.8            2.25
Missouri........................................................            49.6            22.9            2.17
South Carolina..................................................            59.0            27.7            2.13
New Jersey......................................................            52.7            25.5            2.07
Nebraska........................................................            53.3            27.0            1.98
Maryland........................................................            53.4            27.4            1.95
Georgia.........................................................            53.9            30.8            1.75
Alabama.........................................................            52.4            30.3            1.73
Wisconsin.......................................................            52.6            31.2            1.68
Illinois........................................................            46.6            28.0            1.66
Pennsylvania....................................................            50.0            30.6            1.64
Idaho...........................................................            43.0            27.5            1.56
Iowa............................................................            48.9            31.4            1.56
Massachusetts...................................................            43.6            28.4            1.54
North Carolina..................................................            52.7            34.3            1.54
Virginia........................................................            48.1            33.1            1.45
Maine...........................................................            44.1            30.5            1.45
Ohio............................................................            45.3            31.6            1.43
Utah............................................................            40.5            29.2            1.38
Oklahoma........................................................            39.4            28.8            1.37
Vermont.........................................................            42.5            32.4            1.31
South Dakota....................................................            44.7            35.5            1.26
New York........................................................            41.4            34.6            1.19
Minnesota.......................................................            37.8            32.9            1.15
Colorado........................................................            37.3            37.2            1.00
North Dakota....................................................            31.1            32.2            0.96
Arizona.........................................................            34.8            37.4             .93
Oregon..........................................................            30.8            33.4             .92
Michigan........................................................            35.1            41.9             .84
Louisiana.......................................................            22.0            26.5             .83
Wyoming.........................................................            12.9            16.9             .77
Washington......................................................            25.7            39.0             .66
New Mexico......................................................            25.7            39.8             .64
Texas...........................................................            24.6            43.7             .56
Montana.........................................................            19.6            42.1             .47
California......................................................            21.2            46.3             .46
Florida.........................................................            21.8            55.9             .39
Alaska..........................................................              .6            44.1             .01
Hawaii..........................................................  ..............            61.4  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      U.S. average..............................................            41.6            33.4            1.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ARTBA from 1993 Commodity Flow Survey data.

           conclusion--preserving the national highway system
    Although some policymakers would dismantle the federal highway 
program, the central importance of the nation's highway system to the 
economic prosperity of the nation and of the individual states 
dictates, for most states, a different approach.
    The core strategy for reauthorization of the Federal highway 
program should be to preserve and strengthen the national highway 
system, since the economic prosperity of the vast majority of states 
depends more on out-of-state highways than on in-state highways.\9\ 
Devolving the highway program to the states would be self-defeating in 
the long run even for states whose own resources for highways might 
exceed their share of federal highway funds, if higher transportation 
costs and limited access to markets for the state's products resulted 
from a deterioration in the quality of the nation's highway system. 
Ultimately, the state's output and income would fall below the 
potential that could be attained with an excellent national highway 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ As a corollary, the U.S. Department of Transportation has 
recently released data, based on the 1993 Commodity Flow Survey, 
showing how much of the truck traffic within each state consists of 
through-state shipments compared to shipments that either originate or 
end within the state. The large volume of through-state shipments also 
supports the need for a federal highway program. See Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics. ``Truck Movements in America: Shipments 
From, To, Within, and Through States.'' BTS/97-TS/1, May 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In economic terms, the goal of federal highway funding should be to 
allocate resources in such a way as to maximize the national benefit 
from the highway system. This means looking at our national highways as 
a single unit and allocating federal resources wherever they are needed 
to yield the best possible national system. What each state should do 
is ask what kind of highway system is necessary for maximizing the 
state's economic prosperity--by minimizing the transportation cost and 
maximizing the market penetration of the products made in the state, to 
both in-state and out-of-state markets. Each state should then work 
toward a distribution of federal highway funds that achieves this goal.

                      Statement of Barry Copeland

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Copeland.
    Mr. Copeland. Senator, thank you for allowing me the 
opportunity to testify at today's hearing.
    Senator Shelby. Do you want to use that microphone? You 
probably do not need it.
    Mr. Copeland. I am sorry. I am sure I do.
    My name is Barry Copeland, I serve as volunteer chairman of 
the Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce, Governmental Affairs 
Division. The chamber would, first of all, like to wish Mr. 
White a safe trip this afternoon. We need his leadership in 
Washington and we hope he's all right on Corridor X as he 
travels today.
    The Birmingham Area Chamber salutes you, Senator Shelby, 
along with Congressmen Bachus and Aderholt for your outstanding 
leadership on this critical matter of completing Corridor X. 
This has emerged as the No. 1, most important objective of our 
chamber of commerce and we represent 4,000 business members in 
this five-county area of metropolitan Birmingham.
    Just as an aside, those 4,000 members of the chamber employ 
more than 280,000 people in this five-county area.
    Senator Shelby. Two hundred and how many?
    Mr. Copeland. More than 280,000 people employed by our 
members.
    Determining that this highway project would be our top 
priority was not a decision arrived at easily, nor is it 
considered lightly by the chamber. To reach this decision, the 
chamber went through an exhaustive process of first surveying 
the 4,000 members, then holding intensive planning sessions and 
finally having recommendations reviewed, debated, and then 
voted upon by our board of directors and trustees. The Corridor 
X completion emerged as the No. 1 priority.
    Midway last year, the chamber board voted to add work and 
completion on the northern beltline as a coequal priority.
    Additionally, we have worked very hard at the chamber to 
achieve the full cooperation of a number of other chambers of 
commerce, county commissions, mayors, and other publicly 
elected officials all the way from Birmingham up through 
Hamilton and we call this regional entity the Corridor X task 
force. It is truly bipartisan in nature, many of the people on 
the task force are here with us today demonstrating a broad-
based regional bipartisan support for the Corridor X project 
throughout most of north Alabama.
    The Birmingham area chamber and the Corridor X task force 
believe this highway is critical because of two factors, and 
you have heard discussion on this today: Highway safety and 
economic development. We have initiated our own research as to 
the number of accidents along the unfinished stretch of 
Corridor X and have found some interesting numbers. Alarming 
would be a better word.
    Between 1993 and 1996, there were 5,353 accidents on 
Highway 78, and those numbers are substantially higher than 
those reported by the Alabama Department of Transportation and 
Public Safety Department. The reason is, just as an aside, when 
the Public Safety Department counts a traffic accident, if that 
traffic accident occurred at an intersection on Corridor X and 
was assigned to an intersecting road, the Public Safety 
Department in Alabama might not have tally-stroked that as an 
accident on the highway.
    So we surveyed local municipalities up and down the highway 
and the counties involved for Marion, Walker, and Jefferson 
Counties and came up with a number that is roughly one-third 
higher than those reported in the State but we feel a more 
accurate----
    Senator Shelby. One-third higher than the other parts of 
the State?
    Mr. Copeland. No; one-third higher than those reported on 
the same highway by the State simply because the local 
municipalities keep records of those traffic accidents at 
intersections.
    Senator Shelby. Did you compare the rate of accidents on 
other roads in Alabama compared to 78----
    Mr. Copeland. No, sir.
    Senator Shelby. And see if that was higher?
    Mr. Copeland. We did not.
    Senator Shelby. OK.
    Mr. Copeland. We were trying to gauge, Senator, as accurate 
as possible a picture of the traffic accident rate. If you have 
traveled the corridor, you know the high presence of white 
crosses up and down that highway indicating fatalities, and you 
have heard testimony this morning about that.
    But the traffic accident rate itself we felt was 
significantly higher than what we had access to and the surveys 
indicated that.
    Senator Shelby. All right.
    Mr. Copeland. Without a doubt, having a two-lane highway 
handle this huge volume of passenger and freight traffic 
between cities such as Birmingham and Memphis is just a recipe 
for disaster.
    The completion of Corridor X will also mean tremendous 
economic impact in this area of Alabama. In fact, it already 
has. As jobs are being talked about now, as this new money 
becomes available in that corridor, you are seeing communities 
like Jasper advertise themselves aggressively as a great place 
to live, the first time in many, many years.
    We have strong expressions of interest from companies such 
as Federal Express with headquarters in Memphis for the 
completion of this highway. I think it is safe to say it will 
effectively link Alabama's markets with a huge basin of markets 
in the Midwestern United States; however, common sense would 
dictate that Corridor X be completed before any other competing 
corridors to Memphis from Atlanta because you already have 
rights of way in place, you have a major interstate link of I-
20 which already links Atlanta to Birmingham. And so we look at 
Corridor X as a de facto interstate that is just waiting to 
happen and we hope that it will.
    As an additional and equally important priority that the 
chamber has established is the northern beltline, around the 
northern part of Birmingham, which would relieve some very 
serious traffic congestion. It is our hope that the last leg of 
Corridor X will be the first leg of the northern beltline 
because they will intersect.
    We know that funding pledges have been made at the State 
level to complete Corridor X or to have construction under way 
from the Mississippi line into Jasper by 1999 and we have heard 
today projections even beyond that. Now we urgently need the 
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation to 
continue the very pressing funding needs for Corridor X, tying 
it into the Birmingham metropolitan highway system and again, 
ideally, linking Corridor X with the northern beltline.
    In sum, much has been accomplished, and again we are 
grateful to you and to the Congressmen who are here today for 
your leadership. We urge your committee to continue 
accelerating the funding timetable for this highway so that it 
will be completed in a timely fashion for economic development 
reasons and for the saving of lives and the damage to property 
that we have heard about before.
    Thank you again for your outstanding leadership and your 
personal interest in this, and at the Birmingham area chamber, 
we stand ready to do whatever we need to do to support you in 
this.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Copeland. Your written 
statement will be made part of the record.
    [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Barry Copeland
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify 
at today's hearing.
    The Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce wishes to salute you, 
Congressmen Bachus and Aderholt for your collective leadership on the 
critical matter of completing Corridor X, the long awaited controlled 
access highway between Birmingham and Memphis. This has emerged as the 
number one objective of the Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce, our 
4,000 business members and the 280,000-plus employees represented by 
these member businesses.
    Determining this highway project to be our Chamber's top priority 
was not a decision that was arrived at easily--nor is it considered 
lightly. To reach this decision, our Chamber went through an exhaustive 
process of first surveying our 4,000 members, then holding intensive 
planning sessions and finally having the recommendations reviewed and 
deliberated upon by our Board of Directors and Trustees.
    Additionally, we have worked very hard to achieve the full 
cooperation of multiple chambers of commerce, county commissions and 
mayors all the way from Birmingham to Hamilton. We call this regional 
entity the ``Corridor X Task Force.'' Many of them are here this 
morning, proving what broad based, regional support there is for 
Corridor X throughout Alabama.
    The Birmingham Area Chamber and the Corridor X Task Force believes 
that this highway is critically needed because of two factors: Highway 
safety and economic development. We have initiated our own research as 
to the number of accidents along the unfinished stretch of Corridor X 
and have found that between 1993-1996 there were 5,353 accidents on 
Highway 78--numbers substantially higher than those reported by the 
Alabama Highway Department.
    Without a doubt, having a two lane highway handle the huge volume 
of passenger and freight traffic between two major cities such as 
Birmingham and Memphis is a recipe for disaster. We urge you to 
continue your efforts to identify funding quickly--otherwise, highway 
accidents and fatalities will continue to mount.
    Completion of Corridor X will also mean a tremendous economic 
impact to all of Alabama. It will effectively link Alabama markets with 
huge mid-western markets that are currently very difficult to access 
using ground transportation. Furthermore, much talk has been made about 
the need for a separate interstate highway link between Memphis and 
Atlanta. However, common sense would dictate that Corridor X be 
completed first so that a de facto interstate highway could then exist 
between Memphis and Atlanta, running through Birmingham.
    An additional highway priority for our Chamber of Commerce is the 
Northern Beltline around Birmingham to relieve serious traffic 
congestion. It is our sincere hope that the last leg of Corridor X will 
serve as the first leg of the Northern Beltline. Funding pledges have 
been made to complete Corridor X (or have construction underway) from 
the Mississippi state line to Industrial Drive in Jasper by 1999.
    Now we urgently need the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation to consider the very pressing need of finalizing 
Corridor X by tying it into the Birmingham highway system, ideally 
linking Corridor X into the Northern Beltline.
    It is our understanding that approximately $54 million has been 
designated for Corridor X in 1998. That still leaves an additional $546 
million necessary to complete this long overdue roadway. We urge this 
committee to continue to accelerate the funding timetable for this 
highway so that it will be completed in time to save lives and promote 
vitally needed economic development in Alabama.
    Thank you again for your outstanding leadership on this. Our 
Chamber will continue to press as hard as possible on this issue. 
Please keep up the good work and let us know whenever we may be of 
assistance to you.

                      Statement of J. Frank Filgo

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Filgo.
    Mr. Filgo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The trucking industry is a significant catalyst to the 
economy of the State of Alabama. Trucking's job is to deliver 
the goods, cost effectively and safely. This not only benefits 
our customers but the economic prosperity of the State of 
Alabama and its communities as well.
    Over 80 percent of Alabama's manufactured goods, some 237 
million tons annually, are hauled by truck. Projections are, by 
the year 2000, trucks will be asked to haul over 269 million 
tons of Alabama's products to market. Furthermore, three-
quarters of Alabama's communities depend exclusively on trucks 
where there are no rail or water routes.
    In order for our industry to do its job efficiently, we 
require a well-built transportation infrastructure which links 
our communities with one another and to the markets outside our 
State. Well-planned and maintained roads and bridges enable 
trucks to deliver the goods to market at a reasonable cost on 
time and with less instances of highway fatalities or 
accidents.
    Corridor X is a major truck route. Based on truck 
classification counts, approximately 7.5 percent of the traffic 
present on U.S. Highway 78 during the morning peak hour, and 
approximately 7.2 percent of the traffic present during the 
afternoon peak hour is medium or large truck traffic. Simply 
put, the existing conditions are unsafe for all that share the 
road. Our professional truckdrivers have families, too, and we 
want our workplace to be a safe place for all.
    As you know, Corridor X runs through or adjacent to 
Fayette, Jefferson, Lamar, Marion, Walker, and Winston 
Counties. The area's largest employers are manufacturers of 
mobile homes, auto parts and trucks, textiles, among other 
industries. Until Corridor X is completed, these six Alabama 
counties will not be in a position to experience economic 
growth. That, as I understand is the purpose of ADHS.
    It has been said that Alabama is open for business, but 
until Corridor X is completed, the six-county region which 
includes the greater Birmingham area and impacts the entire 
State of Alabama will never realize its true economic 
potential. Alabama's economy cannot prosper off a north and 
southbound truck route. Trucks need to travel east and west, 
too, but cannot unless our roads head in that direction.
    We in the trucking industry realize that good roads and 
bridges are sound investments with the benefits far outweighing 
the initial cost. Each typical five-axle semi-trailer pays over 
$10,000 annually in State and Federal taxes. We would like to 
see more of our highway user fees dedicated to the purpose for 
which they were paid.
    The trucking industry wishes to thank the Alabama U.S. 
congressional delegation for support of Corridor X and the 
overall need for better roads to move Alabama's economy. Senate 
bill 1173, allocating more than a $26 billion increase for 
highway funding recently passed U.S. Senate. Much of that 
increase will be allocated to the States.
    Now the U.S. House of Representatives must address the 
highway funding issue. We urge all Alabama highway users to 
join with the trucking industry in supporting the increased 
funding for our Nation's roadways of which Corridor X is an 
essential component.
    Thank you.

                         Statement of Al Gibbs

    Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Senator Shelby. I am Al Gibbs, 
director of corporate affairs for AAA-Alabama.
    Senator Shelby. Take that microphone closer to you, please. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Gibbs. We are the State affiliate of the 40-million-
member American Automobile Association, and it is a pleasure to 
be here this morning to address you on behalf of AAA-Alabama's 
225,000 members and all Alabama motorists.
    Anyone who has ever driven on Highway 78 between Birmingham 
and Memphis will attest that completion of Corridor X should be 
a priority item on our State's transportation improvement plan. 
But we favor its completion not just for the economic benefits 
it will have for the State or for the additional tourism that 
Alabama will gain or for the congestion relief and air quality 
improvement that will be derived, we advocate its completion 
for the purpose of reducing injuries and needless deaths.
    The simple fact is that the Highway 78 route is inadequate 
to handle the volumes of cars and trucks that travel it, and 
too many crashes and deaths occur that probably would not occur 
if the route were a controlled-access interstate-quality 
highway.
    We automobile owners and drivers realize that we are not 
the only users of our roads. By sharing our roads with big 
trucks loaded with coal or timber or gasoline or large mobile 
homes is just a part of everyday driving. We depend on them to 
deliver the goods and services we need to live our lives and we 
have become accustomed to their presence on the road, but we 
are deathly afraid of their size and weight, especially on 
noninterstate highways such as Highway 78 where drivers face 
more driving variables and distractions.
    Road conditions are a factor in an estimated 30 percent of 
traffic fatalities. Highway improvements such as wider lanes 
and shoulders, adding or improving medians and upgrading roads 
from two lanes to four lanes can reduce traffic fatalities and 
crashes.
    You mentioned earlier that the Tripp information--the road 
information program, Tripp, noted that 77 percent of all fatal 
crashes occur on two-lane roads while only 14 percent occur on 
roads with four or more lanes.
    A study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, this 
report right here which you have, outlines the safety benefits 
we can achieve if we invest our transportation resources 
wisely. For example, by increasing lane width 1 foot, we can 
reduce crashes by 12 percent. Removing hazards within 10 feet 
of a road would reduce these types of crashes by 25 percent. 
Removing hazards that are within 20 feet would reduce crashes 
by 44 percent.
    Every dollar we spend making these improvements on lower 
grade roads actually produces a savings of nearly $3. In our 
view, that's a wise investment. Allowing Federal gas tax 
dollars to accumulate in the highway trust fund is not a wise 
investment. It may look like a savings on paper but in reality 
it merely shifts expenses to other areas of the economy. It 
pushes up the cost of insurance, it pushes up the cost of 
health care. It pushes up the cost of doing business and it 
delays the inevitable time when road and bridge work not done 
today will have to be done anyway, but at that point the work 
will not only be more urgent, it will be much more costly.
    Fortunately, there are obvious solutions. First, Congress 
must pass the ISTEA legislation quickly, and we are pleased to 
see the Senate and we see that the House has a sense of urgency 
as well. Second, we should invest every penny in the highway 
trust fund the way American motorists intended when they passed 
the gasoline tax, to keep our transportation system running 
safely and efficiently.
    AAA's goal is to ensure safety and freedom of mobility for 
this generation and generations to come. In addition to 
improving roads and saving lives, spending the trust fund as it 
was intended will produce two beneficial side effects: American 
motorists will get what they are paying for. That is all they 
want, and Congress and the administration will protect one of 
their greatest assets, and I'm not referring to the 
transportation infrastructure, I'm referring to the trust of 
the American people.
    The money has been collected for transportation, it should 
not be hijacked. Returning highway tax dollars to the State 
held hostage in the highway trust fund could go a long way 
toward completing Corridor X.
    We sincerely thank you for the work that you are you doing 
on this important project and AAA-Alabama supports your 
efforts.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. Your written 
statement will be made part of the record.
    [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Al Gibbs
    It is a pleasure to be here this morning to address you on behalf 
of AAA-Alabama's 225,000 members and all Alabama motorists.
    Anyone that has ever driven on Highway 78 between Birmingham and 
Memphis will attest that completion of Corridor X should be a priority 
item on our State's transportation improvement plan.
    We favor its completion not just for the economic benefits that it 
will have for the State, or for the additional tourism that Alabama 
will gain, or for the congestion relief and air quality improvement 
that will be derived * * * we advocate its completion for the purpose 
of reducing injuries and needless deaths.
    The simple fact is that the Highway 78 route is inadequate to 
handle the volumes of cars and trucks that travel it, and too many 
crashes and deaths occur that probably would not occur if the route 
were a controlled access interstate quality highway.
    We automobile owners and drivers realize that we are not the only 
users of our roads. Sharing our roads with big trucks, loaded with coal 
or timber, or gasoline, or large mobile homes is just a part of 
everyday driving. We depend on them to deliver the goods and services 
we need to live our lives, and we've become accustomed to their 
presence on the road. But we are also deathly afraid of their size and 
weight, especially on non-interstate highways such as Highway 78 where 
drivers face more driving variables and distractions.
    Road conditions are a factor in an estimated 30 percent of traffic 
fatalities. Highway improvements such as wider lanes and shoulders, 
adding or improving median, and upgrading roads from two lanes to four 
lanes can reduce traffic fatalities and crashes.
    According to information gathered and analyzed by the road 
information program (TRIP), 77 percent of all fatal crashes occur on 
two lane roads while only 14 percent occur on roads with four or more 
lanes.
    A study by the AAA foundation for traffic safety a copy of which 
you should have in front of you outlines the safety benefits we can 
achieve if we invest our transportation resources wisely.
    For example:
  --By increasing lane width one foot, we can reduce crashes by 12 
        percent.
  --Removing hazards within 10 feet of a road would reduce these types 
        of crashes by 25 percent.
  --Removing hazards that are within 20 feet would reduce crashes by 44 
        percent.
    Every dollar we spend making these improvements on lower-grade 
roads actually produces a savings of nearly $3. In our view, that's a 
wise investment.
    Allowing Federal gas tax dollars to accumulate in the highway trust 
fund is not a wise investment. It may look like a savings on paper but, 
in reality, it merely shifts expenses to other areas of the economy:
  --It pushes up the cost of insurance.
  --It pushes up the cost of health care.
  --It pushes up the cost of doing business.
  --And it delays the inevitable time when road and bridge work not 
        done today will have to be done anyway. But at that point, the 
        work will not only be more urgent, it will be much more costly.
    Fortunately, there are obvious solutions.
    First, Congress must pass the ISTEA legislation quickly and, 
fortunately, the House and Senate now seem to have that sense of 
urgency.
    And second, we should invest every penny in the highway trust fund 
the way American motorists intended when they passed the gasoline tax 
to keep our transportation system running safely and efficiently.
    AAA's goal is to ensure safety and freedom of mobility for this 
generation and generations to come.
    In addition to improving roads and saving lives * * * spending the 
trust fund as it was intended will produce two beneficial side effects.
    1. American motorists will get what they're paying for. That's all 
they want. And * * *
    2. Congress and the administration will protect one of their 
greatest assets. I'm not referring to the transportation 
infrastructure. I'm referring to the trust of the American people.
  --The money has been collected for transportation.
  --It shouldn't be highjacked.
    Returning highway tax dollars to the State, held hostage in the 
highway trust fund, could go a long way toward completing Corridor X.
    We sincerely thank you for the work you are doing on this important 
project and AAA-Alabama supports your efforts.

    [Clerk's note.--The study referred to in Mr. Gibbs' 
statement does not appear in the hearing record, but is 
available for review in the subcommittee's files.]

                          Subcommittee Recess

    Senator Shelby. Gentlemen, I am going to have some 
questions for the record, but other than that, we want to thank 
you, all of you, for appearing here today. We think this field 
hearing is important. You heard the testimony earlier of the 
two Congressmen and others. I think it defines where we want to 
go and I believe we must, must finish this and we will.
    Thank you very much, and let's keep working until this is 
finished and, as Congressman Bachus brought up, let's then work 
on--or perhaps before then, the northern beltline. It is so 
important to the people of Alabama and to the American people.
    Thank you. This hearing is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 11 a.m., Monday, March 16, the subcommittee 
was recessed, to reconvene at 10:06 a.m., Thursday, March 19.]


         MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO CONCLUSION OF HEARING

    [Clerk's note.--The following material was not presented at 
the hearing, but was submitted to the subcommittee for 
inclusion in the record subsequent to the hearing:]
                 Corridor X: Background, March 16, 1998
    Project Description.--Corridor X is a 96.9 mile controlled access 
facility from the Mississippi state line to I-65 that is part of the 
Appalachian Development Highway System administered by the Appalachian 
Regional Commission. Upon its completion, and in conjunction with other 
routes in Mississippi, it will provide a freeway-type route from 
Birmingham to Memphis. This road will greatly increase accessibility 
into northwest Alabama which should significantly increase economic 
development in the region.
    Project Status.--For the corridor, approximately 23 miles have been 
opened to traffic and 21 miles are currently under construction. The 
environmental documentation has been completed on the entire corridor 
and all of the Right-of-Way has been authorized, except for a 1.8 mile 
segment at I-65 and U.S. 31 in Jefferson County.
    Funding Status.--The total project cost is estimated to be $570 
million (80 percent federal, 20 percent state), but the state of 
Alabama is only seeking about $258 million in ISTEA and state funds 
over the next five years. These funds will be used to complete two 
portions of the Corridor: (1) the segment from SR 129 in Marion County 
to U.S. 78 west of Jasper in Walker County and (2) an 11.9 mile segment 
from U.S. 78 in Graysville in Jefferson County to I-65 in Birmingham. 
These two segments should be finished by 2002. The rest of the Corridor 
will not be completed until after 2002.
    Economic and Safety Benefits.--The major economic benefits result 
from the opening up of the northwest region of the State by providing 
the transportation connection that will promote growth and development 
in the region. The primary safety benefits will be the removal of 
current U.S. 78 traffic from a rural two-lane highway to a freeway type 
facility and eliminating U.S. 78 traffic conflicts through several 
small towns.
    Additional information:
  --In fiscal years 1996 and 1997, Corridor X was eligible for an 
        average of $9 million in Appalachian Highway Funds.
  --In fiscal year 1998, that figure increased more than 500 percent--
        to about $50 million. $40 million of this amount were contained 
        in the Transportation Appropriations Bill.
  --This additional money will allow the state to make significant 
        progress on Corridor X.
  --Corridor X is critical to the state's economy. It will provide a 
        more direct link between Memphis and Birmingham, and will 
        foster job creation.
  --Senator Shelby is committed to securing as much funding as possible 
        for the Appalachian Highway System, so that the state of 
        Alabama will have the ability to finish this important highway.

                      STATUS OF CORRIDOR X SEGMENTS
                            [March 16, 1998]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Length
              Segment                (miles)             Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL/MS State Line to County Road 45         23  Completed.
 (south of Hamilton).
County Road 45 (south of Hamilton)          7  Under construction.
 to SR 129 (Marion County).
SR 129 (Marion County) to County           16  Design phase.
 Road 11 (Walker County).
County Road 11 to U.S. 78 (west of          4  Under construction.
 Jasper in Walker County).
West of U.S. 78 to Burton Creek...          3  Design phase.
Burton Creek to Jasper Industrial          11  Under construction.
 Park Road.
Jasper Industrial Park Road to I-          31  Design phase.
 65 Birmingham.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 ______
                                 
   Resolution of the City of Cordova, Alabama, Regarding Corridor X 
                              Development
Whereas, the development of the Appalachian Regional Highway known as 
    Corridor X connecting Memphis, Tennessee to Birmingham, Alabama and 
    points between; and
Whereas, construction on this important artery for trade and tourism 
    has lagged in its funding and development; and
Whereas, Appalachian Highway dollars will soon be appropriated that far 
    exceed amounts appropriated in recent years, resulting in a major 
    increase of Federal funding for the two Appalachian corridors in 
    Alabama; and
Whereas, lives are being lost at an alarming rate because of 
    unacceptable conditions along the over-traveled roadway; and
Whereas, the Governor of Alabama has pledged to match with appropriate 
    funding all Federal money coming to the state for Appalachian 
    highway development; and
Whereas, the economic potential of northwest Alabama is largely at bay 
    until significant headway is made on Corridor X: Now, therefore, be 
    it
Resolved, That the officials of Cordova, Alabama, who below sign in 
    witness to this document, fully support and encourage the speedy 
    completion of Corridor X; and be it further
Resolved, That the Governor of Alabama, in full understanding of the y 
    and emergency nature of this important highway project, be urged to 
    appropriate additional funding to Corridor X until the citizens of 
    north Alabama are convinced the project is proceeding with haste 
    and appropriateness
    Attest:
                                         Elaine Stover, City Clerk.
                                            Shelly Drummond, Mayor.
                                 ______
                                 
 Letter From Barry Copeland, Vice Chairman, Governmental Affairs, the 
                  Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce
                                                    March 11, 1998.
Hon. Richard Shelby,
U.S. Senator, Alabama, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
        Transportation, 110 Hart Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Shelby: The Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce 
wishes to salute you for your outstanding leadership on the critical 
matter of completing Corridor X, the long awaited controlled access 
highway between Birmingham and Memphis. This has emerged as the number 
one objective of the Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce, its 4,000 
business members and the 280,000-plus employees represented by these 
member businesses.
    Determining this highway project to be our Chamber's top priority 
was not a decision that was arrived at easily--nor is it considered 
lightly. To reach this decision our Chamber went through an exhaustive 
process of first surveying our 4,000 members, then holding intensive 
planning sessions and finally having the recommendations reviewed and 
deliberated upon by our Board of Directors and Trustees.
    The Birmingham Area Chamber believes that this highway is 
critically needed because of two factors: Highway safety and economic 
development. We have initiated our own research as to the number of 
accidents along the unfinished stretch of Corridor X and have found 
5,353 accidents on Highway 78 between 1993-1996--numbers substantially 
higher than those reported by the Alabama Highway Department. Without a 
doubt, this highway that is currently two lane for much of its route is 
direly needed to be upgraded to interstate status to handle the volume 
of passenger and freight traffic between the major cities of Birmingham 
and Memphis. Otherwise, highway accidents and fatalities will continue 
to mount.
    Completion of Corridor X will mean a tremendous economic impact to 
all of Alabama. It will effectively link Alabama markets with huge mid-
western markets that are currently very difficult to access using 
ground transportation. Furthermore, much talk has been made about the 
need for a separate interstate highway link between Memphis and 
Atlanta. However, common sense would dictate that Corridor X be 
completed first so that a de facto interstate highway could then exist 
between Memphis and Atlanta running through Birmingham.
    An additional highway priority for our Chamber is the Northern 
Beltline around Birmingham to relieve serious traffic congestion. It is 
our sincere hope that the last leg of Corridor X will serve as the 
first leg of the Northern Beltline. Funding pledges have been made to 
complete Corridor X (or have construction underway) from the 
Mississippi state line to Industrial Drive in Jasper by 1999. Now we 
urgently need the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation 
to consider the very pressing need of finalizing Corridor X by tying it 
into the Birmingham highway system, ideally linking Corridor X into the 
Northern Beltline.
    Thank you again for your outstanding leadership on this. Our 
records show that over $50 million will be spent on Corridor X in 1998. 
That is a step in the right direction but, as you know, the total price 
tag to complete it is $600 million. Please keep up the good work and 
let us know whenever we may be of assistance to you.
            Sincerely,
                                            Barry Copeland,
                               Vice Chairman, Governmental Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
               Resolution of the Walker County Commission
Whereas, redevelopment of the area parallel to U.S. Highway 78 from 
    Memphis to Birmingham is a highway project originally planned to 
    connect the last two major Southern cities not already connected by 
    a controlled access highway; and
Whereas, work on this project, begun 30 years ago, is presently 
    lagging, almost to a stop; and
Whereas, citizens of Walker County, Alabama, and other passengers and 
    drivers along the way continue to lose their lives at a rate of 
    almost one per month over the last four years; and
Whereas, trade and tourism are suffering because of the inability to 
    travel safely and with expediency along the present U.S. Highway 
    78: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Walker County Commission pledges its full support to 
    the efforts of the Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce and the 
    Corridor X Task Force; and be it further
Resolved, That the Walker County Commission urges the full support and 
    assistance of The Honorable Jeff Sessions, The Honorable Richard 
    Shelby, The Honorable Robert Aderholt, The Honorable Spencer 
    Bachus, and The Honorable Bud Cramer, in efforts to complete this 
    valuable roadway with full expediency and with the knowledge that 
    it is according to the good pleasure and will of this body and of 
    the populace of our great County.
    This the 1st day of April, 1997.
                                           Bruce Hamrick, Chairman.
                                 ______
                                 
                  Resolution of the City of Jasper, AL
Whereas, accelerated funding for the completion of Corridor X has been 
    a top priority for the City of Jasper, Alabama, all this year and 
    in the past year; and
Whereas, we have received increased funding from the federal government 
    through the Appalachian Regional Commission; however funding from 
    the State, other than matching federal funds, have not come forth: 
    Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the City Council of the City of Jasper, Alabama, That the 
    Honorable Fob James, Governor of the State of Alabama, be asked to 
    commit a minimum of Forty Million Dollars in State Department of 
    Transportation funds, exclusive of matching funds, for Corridor X 
    in the proposed Highway Bond Issue.
    This the 2nd day of September, 1997.
    Approved.
                                                  Don Goetz, Mayor.
                                 ______
                                 
    Resolution No. 96-97-16, City of Sumiton, Corridor X Development
Whereas, the development of the Appalachian Regional Highway known as 
    Corridor X connecting Memphis, Tennessee to Birmingham, Alabama and 
    points between; and
Whereas, construction on this important artery for trade and tourism 
    has lagged in its funding and development; and
Whereas, Appalachian Highway dollars will soon be appropriated that far 
    exceed amounts appropriated in recent years, resulting in a major 
    increase of Federal funding for the two Appalachian corridors in 
    Alabama; and
Whereas, lives are being lost at an alarming rate because of 
    unacceptable conditions along the over-traveled roadway; and
Whereas, the Governor of Alabama has pledged to match with appropriate 
    funding all Federal money coming to the state for Appalachian 
    highway development; and
Whereas, the economic potential of northwest Alabama is largely at bay 
    until significant headway is made on Corridor X: Now, therefore, be 
    it
Resolved, That the officials of Sumiton, Alabama, fully support and 
    encourage the speedy completion of Corridor X; and be it further
Resolved, That the Governor of Alabama, in full understanding of the 
    urgency and emergency nature of this important highway project, be 
    urged to appropriate additional funding to Corridor X until the 
    citizens of North Alabama are convinced the project is proceeding 
    with haste and appropriateness.
    Approved.
                                                 Pete Ellen, Mayor.


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1999

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby, Domenici, Gorton, Bennett, 
Faircloth, Lautenberg, Byrd, Reid, and Kohl.

           DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAJOR FUNDING ISSUES

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary

STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY E. SLATER, SECRETARY OF 
            TRANSPORTATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
    We will focus on a few specifics of the President's budget 
request later in the hearing, Mr. Secretary, but first I wanted 
to say that it has been a pleasure working with you for the 
past year. I venture to say that both you and I have learned a 
great deal, though you probably knew a lot more than I did, 
about our Nation's transportation systems. That was your first 
as Secretary of Transportation and it was my first as chairman 
of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. But I have 
enjoyed working with you and your staff.

                           Funding Priorities

    Last year, we discussed some of the criteria by which we 
should evaluate the cost effectiveness of transportation 
programs. In putting together last year's Appropriations Act, I 
tried to focus our limited Federal resources on programs and 
projects that create jobs, create opportunities, create 
economic activity, and improve mobility in America, while, at 
the same time, reflecting the priorities articulated in the 
President's budget request and in the programs highlighted by 
members of the committee and the Senate.
    I think that 1998 has been a good year for transportation. 
However, in the budget constrained environment in which we all 
must operate, the task of this subcommittee has been a 
balancing act of allocating resources among a host of 
worthwhile priorities. This year will be no exception.
    The Senate-passed ISTEA reauthorization legislation 
envisions highway obligation limitation levels significantly 
higher than the record level we appropriated last year. I 
support those increased levels. But I am also fully cognizant 
of the pressure these levels will place on the other accounts 
in this bill.
    The first dollar in this bill will be a highway dollar. The 
last dollar in this bill will be a highway dollar. And in 
between, we will focus on safety programs.
    We will have to wait and see what happens with the ISTEA 
funding levels as the budget process moves forward and as the 
House takes up consideration of the reauthorization bill. I 
look forward to the completion of both these efforts because 
this is one Senator who believes that investment in our highway 
infrastructure is an investment in our future economic growth, 
opportunity, and an improved quality of life for all Americans.
    Last year, the administration's budget request effectively 
called for a freeze on the obligation limitation for highways, 
and I note that this year's request does effectively the same 
thing.
    So it seems that where goes the Congress on highway 
investment the administration gets to within a year or so. I 
applaud you for that conclusion.
    Although your request is not at a level that I think is 
realistic in light of where the authorization process seems to 
be headed, it is only 12 to 18 months behind where Congress is, 
and I think that is a major improvement over what we have had 
in the past.
    I will not comment at this time on the failure of the 
President's budget to live within the discretionary budget 
caps, but I am sure that the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who is also a member 
of this subcommittee, may have a few words for you on that 
score.

                           Funding Challenges

    Meeting the high level of highway funding needs will be 
made more challenging this year by two factors: an increase in 
the first year outlay scoring for Federal-aid highways, from 17 
to 27 percent, and the need to fill some holes in the budget 
where the administration has assumed they will reap receipts 
from user fees in a number of programs, many of which are not 
in place or even authorized.
    So every dollar we put in highways will cost us more in the 
first year of obligation. And, as we begin our attempt to meet 
the authorized highway obligation level, we must also backfill 
over $200 million in user fee holes.
    I would also like to make the observation that the 
subcommittee will be well served by moving a bill early this 
year. If we move early, we maximize our ability to focus on the 
issues related to transportation. If our bill is not completed 
and sent to the President for signature by the August recess, I 
am concerned that the highway number will come under pressure 
from the administration, where highway investment clearly is 
not the priority that it is in the Congress.
    Today we are honored to have the Secretary of 
Transportation, Hon. Rodney Slater, to testify. He will be 
followed by a panel of two administrators, from the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Jane Garvey, and the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard, Adm. Bob Kramek.
    Senator Lautenberg.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG

    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    You have learned fast, Mr. Chairman, and though I would 
gladly change places with you, I have great respect for the 
work you have done and the leadership you have provided. We 
have worked well together.
    I am kind of getting used to second place. I am the ranking 
Democrat on the subcommittee. I am also the ranking Democrat on 
the Budget Committee. I heard your admonition, Mr. Chairman. 
Last night, we passed the budget through the committee and, 
hopefully, we will see it on the floor in the next week or so. 
We have taken care of, in that budget, the ISTEA proposal that 
passed the Senate. It will require, as you have suggested, Mr. 
Chairman, quite a bit of juggling or balancing to get the 
funding that we would like to see.
    Mr. Chairman, I note the appearance here of Senator Byrd, 
who brings a level of experience that none of us in the room 
has in terms of matters of transportation. I get the feeling, 
Mr. Chairman, that this is a particularly important 
subcommittee meeting when Admiral Byrd--I mean, of course, 
Senator Byrd--can find time on his schedule to be here with us. 
So we will pay attention, Mr. Chairman, I am sure.
    Also, I am glad to see our good friend and very successful 
Secretary, Rodney Slater, here with us.
    I want to take 1 minute, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to note 
the fact that Adm. Robert Kramek is going to have his last 
appearance before this subcommittee. He is finishing his tour 
of duty, which he has done with distinction.
    I want to thank you, Admiral, for your advocacy and your 
diligence in making sure that the Coast Guard has the resources 
it needs to function and that it does its tasks so admirably, 
as it has in its long history.
    I am very proud of the Coast Guard. I see all of the 
responsibilities that they have and those that we continue to 
give them, and they carry them out exceptionally. We wish 
Admiral Loy well in his upcoming opportunity.

                       Infrastructure Investment

    Over these past few months, critical events have shaped our 
paths in terms of transportation investment. The Senate passed 
its ISTEA reauthorization bill with historic levels for highway 
and transit and with healthy investments for safety programs. 
The Amtrak reauthorization bill was signed into law, spelling 
out very clearly appropriate funding levels for Amtrak.
    Now Congress and the public have spoken in favor of 
increased investment in our infrastructure.
    Mr. Chairman, so often we ignore the opportunity or the 
obligation to make the long-term investments in infrastructure. 
You can never quite make it up when you fail to put in 
sufficient funds at the moment. The highways are, indeed, in 
need of repair, upgrading, and so forth. But we need to make 
investments in all modes of transportation service.
    Congress and the public support that. Congress and the 
public have also strongly endorsed the balanced budget 
agreement that we adopted last year.
    These three events--ISTEA and increased levels for mass 
transit and highways, Amtrak reauthorization, and the balanced 
budget--present enough challenges to our subcommittee than we 
ever could have hoped for.

                           Investment Balance

    Our goals should be to ensure that funding for our national 
transportation system reflects the balance in a transportation 
network that fills the needs and the special requirements of 
regions or sectors or population centers in the country.
    We need not punish one mode of transportation for the 
benefit of another. The Senate just endorsed a balanced surface 
transportation plan for the next 6 years. And a few months ago, 
a funding plan for Amtrak to reach operating self-sufficiency 
was put in place.
    This subcommittee has been charged with meeting these 
goals. We have met such commitments for years and we should 
continue to do so this year.
    We should not forget that spending Federal dollars on our 
national passenger rail service is a wise investment in this 
age of traffic-clogged highways, airport congestion, and 
increased pollution controls. Also, to mention a very important 
thing that we see happening around us, there is the continuous 
rise in the importation of oil from abroad. This is not a 
position I like to see us in and I am sure others share that 
point of view.
    While hundreds of billions of dollars are spent every 
decade on highway and airport improvements, a mere fraction on 
a relative basis is spent on the country's rail system. If we 
underfund Amtrak, we must be ready to find somewhere else the 
hundreds of billions of dollars that will be needed to build 
more airports and highways to deal with the resulting 
congestion.
    Just look at our aviation system today. It is so crowded 
that it is almost impossible to maintain timely schedules. You 
see people sleeping in airports, having their meals while 
sitting on the floor. All of these things need investment.
    The congestion also causes health problems. We know that. 
Air pollution is a very serious problem in the country.
    We also have to remember how important mass transit is to 
our national economy--our national economy, I point out--and 
our quality of life.
    Right now, U.S. businesses lose an estimated $40 billion a 
year in economic costs due to traffic congestion, and if all 
transit commuters drove to work, instead of taking transit, the 
annual cost of congestion on our highways would climb, it is 
estimated, by at least another $15 billion.
    Transit has always played a key role in linking Americans 
with jobs, education, health care, and other services, and will 
increasingly do so in the future.
    Unfortunately, our challenges do not stop with mass 
transit, Amtrak, and highways. As I noted, we are confronted 
with serious needs for FAA activities that affect the safety in 
our skies--and I am pleased to see the administrator here--the 
security in our airports, and the upgrading of equipment, the 
accommodation of current and expected growth in commercial and 
general aviation.
    As the year 2000 looms ahead, the FAA is working its ``war 
room'' to fix computers that may not recognize this simple 
change of date. Our air traffic control mainframe computers and 
equipment are so antiquated that the original manufacturers can 
no longer provide support, and I can attest to that--having 
come out of the computer business and having long ago discarded 
equipment in my company that we still use in FAA.
    Our air traffic controllers are stretched thin. But armed 
with the ambitious plan proposed 1 year ago by the White House 
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, and educated by the 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission report entitled 
``Avoiding Aviation Gridlock and Reducing the Accident Rate,'' 
I call attention to the fact that they forecast that, unless we 
invest in the aviation system worldwide, by the year 2010, we 
can expect a major crash somewhere in the globe every 7 to 10 
days. We cannot permit that condition to exist.
    So we have to have some ideas as to where we will go.
    Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to place a heavier load on you 
than the one you already have, but you know what we have to do 
and I know that you support these investments in 
infrastructure.
    Our collaborative working relationship during the last 
appropriations process produced a balanced bill. I look forward 
to getting the same result working with you, Mr. Chairman, this 
year.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRD

    Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 
leadership that you are demonstrating as chairman of this 
subcommittee in promoting additional investments in our 
transportation infrastructure.
    I thank you also, Senator Lautenberg, for the continued 
demonstration of efforts that you have put forth in the same 
regard.

                       Infrastructure Investment

    I wonder when the administration is going to catch on. I 
don't see any indication that beefing up infrastructure is one 
of the administration's top priorities. It should be.
    When Mr. Clinton ran the first time for Presidential 
office, he emphasized infrastructure. I have not heard much 
about that lately. But the American people, and I think the 
Congress, support increased funding for infrastructure.
    So we are ahead of the administration. I hope the 
administration will rush to catch up.
    Darius the Great, who was King of Persia by virtue of the 
neigh of a horse, ruled from 522 B.C. to 485 B.C. He was 
defeated by the Greeks at the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. 
But he recognized the importance of highways and the Persians 
built great highways, linking the leading cities of Persia--
Susa, Ecbatana, Nineveh, Sardis, Smyrna, and all the way down 
to Egypt. Reaching the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, the 
Persians knew the importance, as I say, of highways.
    Sir Francis Bacon recognized the importance of highways. He 
said there are three things that make a Nation great and 
prosperous--a fertile soil, busy workshops, and easy conveyance 
for men and goods from place to place.
    He was later sent to the Tower, but not for that belief. 
[Laughter.]
    He was sent to the Tower because he was impeached. We got 
impeachment from our English brethren, the first impeachment 
occurring in 1376, during the reign of Edward III, when Richard 
Lyons and some other high officers were impeached.
    Bacon was impeached for accepting bribes, and he admitted 
it. But I remember him for what he said about transportation 
modes.

                      Surface Transportation Bill

    Now, recently, we passed a very important bill, and I am 
sure you are aware, because I have discussed it with you, Mr. 
Secretary, you are aware of the effort that Senator Gramm, 
Senator Warner, Senate Baucus, and I put forth to add $26 
billion to the ISTEA II, bringing the figure up from $147 
billion to $173 billion.
    Do you support that continued amount? Do you support that?
    Secretary Slater. Clearly, Senator Byrd, you and Senator 
Gramm, Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, and all of the other 
Members are to be commended for the strong voice that you have 
given to increased investment in infrastructure. We support 
record level investment. We want to do it, though, in a way 
that is consistent with the balanced budget agreement. But that 
is something we will work out over time.
    Senator Byrd. Well, do you support that level?
    Secretary Slater. This was a very strong statement. I 
commended the bill on the day of passage and said that the 
Senate had done a great job. I feel very good about that level 
of investment.

                       Appalachian Highway System

    Senator Byrd. Included in that level was $2.19 billion for 
the Appalachian Highway System, which is 32 years past due. 
That amount of money was recommended by the President in his 
proposed ISTEA legislation.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
    Senator Byrd. That will be a great step forward toward 
completion of those Appalachian highways, which are important 
to the 13 States that are involved.
    Do you support that $2.19 billion for Appalachian highways?
    Secretary Slater. Most definitely, sir.
    Senator Byrd. And the administration supports it?
    Secretary Slater. Oh, yes.
    As you noted, it was a part of the administration's 
proposed budget for fiscal year 1999.
    Senator Byrd. I can't understand why the President has 
recommended a freeze in highway funding at the 1998 level over 
the next 5 or 6 years.
    Secretary Slater. That freeze, though, Senator, is at a 
record level. I can tell you that the President, as you've 
noted and as many others have noted, said early-on in his 
administration that he was committed to rebuilding America. We 
have seen an increase in investment by about 42 percent over 
the period 1990 to 1993. But, again, we need to deal with these 
issues in the context of putting our fiscal house in order, 
ensuring that we have a balanced system, and we are definitely 
poised to do just that, working in partnership with this 
committee and with this Congress.
    Senator Byrd. Well, I think it is important to repair and 
to maintain and to further build the transportation 
infrastructure in this country.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
    Senator Byrd. We have sworn fealty at the altar of a 
balanced budget. But I think we have to also think of America's 
competitive position in world markets. I think we have to 
remember our own people who are engaged in business ventures. 
They will benefit by public investments in infrastructure.
    I have not heard the administration express support for the 
$2.19 billion for the Appalachian Highway System recently. I 
hope you will express support for it.
    Secretary Slater. I do today, sir, and I do so with the 
full commitment of the President in that regard.
    Senator Byrd. Very well.
    Now Henry Clay was a great advocate, as you will remember, 
of the American system, which included Federal spending for 
internal improvements. He helped to lead the way in building 
the Old Cumberland Road. The Old Cumberland Road is sometimes 
referred to, and was then, as the Old National Road. It 
extended from Cumberland, MD, to Wheeling, WV, and on to 
Vandalia, IL. It was begun in 1811, and by 1818, the Congress 
had invested the huge amount of $3 million in that highway.
    Henry Clay, who was a great leader, a great American 
leader, a great U.S. Senator, and who was Speaker of the House 
of Representatives early on in his political career, was an 
advocate of that highway and assisted in getting congressional 
appropriations for it. So I feel that we are working in pretty 
big shoes when we support Clay's American system, at least that 
part of it, improved infrastructure.
    Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me this 
opportunity to speak of infrastructure and I thank the 
Secretary for his appearance here today and for his support of 
the Appalachian Highway System.
    We are going to dedicate a link of that highway system this 
year, and I am going to see to it that our Republican Governor, 
who is a friend of mine from our first years in the 
legislature, 52 years ago, together--he later became the 
youngest Governor in the State of West Virginia and now he has 
become the oldest Governor in the State of West Virginia, 
though he is still about 5 years behind me--he is a great 
friend of mine and I am going to ask him to be sure that 
Secretary Slater is invited to that meeting and that he is on 
the program.
    I look forward to hearing Secretary Slater there.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, before we go on, whenever 
I am with Senator Byrd, I always learn something new. I just 
have a problem remembering the dates, the names, and all those 
things. But, other than that, I conclude with ``I wish I had 
said that.''
    Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. I think we all wish we had said it if we 
had known about it, learned it, and remembered it. [Laughter.]
    Senator Byrd could be a full professor of classics and I 
think we would all benefit from it. Perhaps he is.
    Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Reid.
    Senator Reid. The lectures that Senator Byrd gave on the 
Roman Empire are the subject matter of a course that is now in 
its third year of being taught at the University of Las Vegas. 
The text for that is the lectures of Senator Byrd.
    Senator Faircloth. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
    Senator Faircloth. I was really excited in that one time I 
had thought he had said pork chops, but he had said workshops. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Lautenberg. Is that from the hog farmer? 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Shelby. I want now to recognize Senator Faircloth. 
We are now talking about infrastructure and highways. In a 
previous life, in his State of North Carolina, he knew 
something about highways, infrastructure, and transportation 
because he was the man in charge of all of that.
    Senator Faircloth, we are glad to have you as a member of 
this committee and we recognize you now.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR FAIRCLOTH

    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
all you are doing. I will be very brief.
    The budget overall was very good. I found some things in it 
that were disturbing, but we are going to need to find ways to 
strengthen the highway budget. We are falling behind. But the 
new ISTEA bill reflects this.
    One thing that concerned me was the Amtrak budget when, 
clearly, we appropriate money for capital expenditures, rails, 
and cars, and then come right under it and say but if you don't 
want to spend it for this, you can spend it for operating 
expenses--salaries, people, whatever.
    Why even budget it if we are going to leave all that 
flexibility in there? I think it is a ridiculous way to be 
committing money.
    I am very much pleased at the increased commitment to 
aviation. I think the Airport Improvement Program is critical 
for the safety of this country. I am confident that Ms. Garvey 
is going to do a good job to bring it about.
    I had asked for a report from the inspector general on the 
computer fiasco. I have not gotten it yet. But I would still 
like to know anything Ms. Garvey can enlighten me with as to 
what went on there and what is going on.
    I cannot think of anything more frightening than flying in 
airplanes in fogs, clouds, and rain with an antiquated control 
system about which we are totally helpless. When you sit down 
in the seat of that plane, you cannot do anything.
    So I would even put that ahead of anything.
    Senator Byrd, I can dodge a pothole, but there is not a 
thing I can do if that pilot drives that plane in the ground.
    In the proposed Coast Guard budget, the administration 
proposes a new user fee as a source of funding. A user fee is 
nothing but a tax increase, and I don't think we need any tax 
increases.
    I will not be voting for a user fee.
    I have several questions of Mr. Slater and Ms. Garvey. But 
thank you, Mr. Chairman for letting me be here.
    Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, might I just answer my friend 
from North Carolina----
    Senator Shelby. Yes, Senator Byrd.
    Senator Byrd. A State whose motto is ``To be rather than to 
seem.''
    Senator Faircloth. Absolutely that is the motto.
    Senator Byrd. It is a motto of which one can be justly 
proud.
    As to dodging potholes----
    Senator Faircloth. Well, you understand the context of what 
I am saying.
    Senator Byrd. I do.
    Senator Faircloth. The driver has a little control over 
that.
    Senator Byrd. I was just going to point out, as I recall--
and perhaps Mr. Slater can correct me--I believe 42,000 people 
lose their lives on highways every year.
    Secretary Slater. That's correct.
    Senator Byrd. If that is a correct figure----
    Secretary Slater. It is.
    Senator Byrd. It seems to me it would break down to about 
110, perhaps, a day.
    Secretary Slater. That's correct.
    Senator Byrd. Can you imagine an airliner crashing every 
day and killing 110 people? That is the equivalent.
    If that happened, the administration would be out there 
every day saying more money for highways, more money for 
highways. I think when we reduce it to those terms, we realize 
the significance of the importance of safety on our highways.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Reid.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID

    Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Slater, I saw you and your colleagues in the 
gallery when ISTEA passed last week. I noted the pleasure in 
all of your demeanor last week and I am sure it was because the 
vote was so resounding in favor of ISTEA.
    So I think that answers the question as to whether or not 
you favor our additional funding. I was happy to join with 
Senator Byrd and others in adding that additional money which 
makes the bill a better bill than it was before.

                                  I-15

    The State of Nevada is growing so rapidly. I have spoken to 
you personally about the tremendously difficult problems that 
we have. In Las Vegas, we have about 300 people moving there 
each day. That has created real problems in trying to maintain 
our infrastructure.
    We have come to realize the importance of, and we have a 
joint venture now with California, trying to do something about 
I-15--the connecting highway between southern California and 
southern Nevada. It used to be just a Nevada problem because 
people looked at that as a way of moving people to and from the 
resorts in Nevada. But we have now come to a partnership with 
the State of California because they now realize that it is 
also a way to move commerce between California and the rest of 
the country. When that road is clogged up, people stand and 
wait, causing their employers tremendously increased costs for 
moving the produce and other products that they have around the 
country.
    So moving people and goods quickly and efficiently through 
the Nation is one of the most important things that ISTEA will 
allow us to do.
    The original ISTEA, as you know, Mr. Secretary, was one of 
the most far reaching and innovative pieces of legislation ever 
produced by Congress. We decided to no longer look at 
completing the Interstate System but, rather, at focusing on 
connecting different modes of transportation to meet the needs 
of the future. That was the right thing to do.
    ISTEA II will continue along those lines.

                               Lake Tahoe

    I want to say, as part of that, how grateful I am to you 
and the administration for your attention to Lake Tahoe, this 
gem that the State of Nevada shares with the State of 
California, which Mark Twain said was the fairest place on all 
the Earth.
    Now Mark Twain had not been to many other places. But the 
fact is he, I think, in his mind's eye, like those of us who 
visit Lake Tahoe, recognized that if there is a fairer place on 
the Earth, it would take something to be.
    You and the administration have stepped in and been very 
responsive to the issues that are facing that very struggling 
lake. I appreciate that.

                             Drunk Driving

    I am glad to see that we have some requests for almost $40 
million for alcohol incentive grants. These grants are designed 
to encourage States to pass strong anti-drunk driving 
legislation.
    A couple of weeks ago, I had a very tough decision. I had 
to vote against an amendment offered by my friend and 
colleague, Senator Lautenberg, lowering the drunk driving level 
from 0.1 to 0.08. It was difficult because I had stated 
publicly before and have also since that I favor lowering that 
rate. The problem is, in the State of Nevada, three successive 
legislatures have turned that down. So I had to vote against my 
friend and that was difficult to do.

                          Motor Carrier Safety

    I see that you are asking for a 17-percent increase in 
motor carrier safety grants. That is another program I support.
    I don't want to make a big deal out of it here today. But, 
again, the ranking member of this subcommittee and I have been 
very concerned about triple trailer trucks, those large, 
combination trucks.
    I have tried over the last 4 months to work something out 
with the trucking industry, and I think we had a real good 
program worked out, a study program worked out. Some people 
from the safety industry did not agree with what we were trying 
to do. So, sadly, we are not going to be able to do anything in 
this bill to provide more information on these combination 
vehicles, especially in unresolved issues like length, weight, 
infrastructure damage, environmental concerns, and, most 
importantly, safety.
    Therefore, I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that your office 
would do what you can to get us more information about triple 
trailer trucks. The information is simply not there. There is a 
lot of information put out by various special interest groups 
about how safe these vehicles are.
    Well, anyone driving down the highway next to one of these 
knows that that is a stretch. We badly need information and we 
were going to put something in this bill to mandate that. But 
that is not going to be the case now.
    So I would hope that you and your agency, generally, would 
take a close look at that.
    Secretary Slater. OK.
    Senator Reid. I have just a couple of more things, Mr. 
Chairman.

                             Passenger Rail

    I am a fan of Amtrak. We spend so much time here talking 
about our airports, which are very important. I agree with 
Senator Faircloth that we need to do everything we can to 
assure the safety of our airports.
    We spend huge amounts of money on our highways. But when we 
spend a few dollars on a rail transportation system, people 
become very concerned.
    You know, it really is planes, trains, and automobiles. It 
takes all three, and we need to devote more time to passenger 
travel by rail. That is why Senator Moynihan and I, as a member 
of this committee, have spent a great deal of time working on 
magnetic levitation. There is some money in this ISTEA bill 
that, hopefully, will allow that to proceed further than it 
has.

                      Surface Transportation Board

    I have another concern and that is with the new Surface 
Transportation Board. I think they need a lot of work done. On 
two almost identical programs dealing with railroads, they came 
up with totally different answers. In Reno, NV, where we have a 
Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger, the Surface 
Transportation Board refused to do an environmental impact 
statement. That is too bad. They really should have done that.
    The only thing I will say publicly here about the Surface 
Transportation Board is that I am going to watch very closely 
their funding level. I think, from what I have seen today, we 
may have been better off keeping the Interstate Commerce 
Commission than in coming up with this Surface Transportation 
Board, which I think at this point has been a total failure.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work that you have done on 
this subcommittee. I also appreciate the work of the ranking 
member. You have both been a pleasure to work with and I look 
forward to our doing some good things this year as we complete 
the conference on the surface transportation bill and doing 
some good things with you, Senator Lautenberg, on the 
Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT

    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I won't attempt in any way to try to duplicate the memory 
and history lesson from the Senator from West Virginia, but I 
will comment in the spirit of the comments that have been going 
around here that I do have a sudden flash of deja vu.
    I remember sitting at exactly that same table where you are 
sitting, Mr. Secretary, when I worked for the Department of 
Transportation, and being questioned by the Senator from 
Nevada, Alan Bible. I find that kind of an interesting flash 
that I had not thought of again. It was in this room with the 
same State being represented by a distinguished Senator on this 
panel. I remember how hard I prepared for that particular 
appearance.
    Senator Faircloth. How did you come out? [Laughter.]
    Senator Bennett. We did all right. We got all the money we 
wanted. Yes; we got all the money we wanted. [Laughter.]
    Senator Reid. Bible was much more generous than Shelby. 
[Laughter.]

                      Infrastructure for Olympics

    Senator Bennett. Mr. Secretary, I was in Nagano, Japan, 
through the closing ceremonies of the Olympics and the closing 
event of the Olympics over there. I did not spend all of my 
time going to Olympic events, however. I went to see the 
transportation officials there to ask them questions about 
their challenges relating to putting on the Winter Olympics 
because we are going to be faced with similar challenges in the 
United States.
    Their principal problem, of course, was the weather, and 
you cannot control that. But they put in an enormous amount of 
money and effort in creating an infrastructure that would make 
it possible for the Olympic guests to get to and from the 
various venues.
    I came away with a more humble opinion of just how daunting 
that challenge is--I guess I should say a more exalted opinion 
and a more humble attitude. That would be the proper way of 
describing that.
    The folks in Japan did a tremendous job and required a 
tremendous amount of preparation and infrastructure.
    I want publicly to commend you for the way you, personally, 
and Mr. Jack Basso, your Budget Director, institutionally have 
responded to the challenges that we have had in Salt Lake City 
as we have started to get ready for these Olympic games.
    I note that your predecessor, Secretary Pena, was quoted as 
saying that he wished he could have done more to help alleviate 
the transportation snafus in Atlanta, but that he was 
proscribed by the legislative and regulatory situation with 
which he was faced.
    We have worked with you and the Mayor of Salt Lake has 
worked with you to try to make sure you don't feel those kind 
of proscriptions or that your successor does not if you are not 
Secretary in 2002 when it comes to the Salt Lake games.
    I would just ask this question. Do you now feel comfortable 
that you have all of the discretion you need in order to assist 
Salt Lake City in putting on those games?
    Secretary Slater. Senator, I do feel comfortable and I can 
say, without reservation, that you and the citizens of Utah 
will have the full support of this administration as we work 
with the Congress to respond to your transportation needs and 
challenges.
    Senator Bennett. I sincerely thank you for that and for, 
again, repeating your attitude and that of the members of your 
staff in helping us work that out.
    As a Republican, I am hoping there will be a different 
administration when the games come along, of course, but I 
recognize that these are America's games and they rise above 
any kind of partisanship.
    We are grateful to you and your staff members for your 
willingness to work with us.
    Senator Reid. Senator Bennett, there will be another 
administration. It will be President Gore.
    Senator Shelby. Well, I think that is debatable.
    Senator Bennett. Yes; that is the subject for another time. 
[Laughter.]
    I do have some questions for Administrator Garvey with 
respect to the air traffic control pattern around Salt Lake 
International Airport, and I will save those questions for when 
we hear from the administration.
    Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Before I recognize Senator Domenici, and I 
am sure he has some statements and questions, Senator Bond 
wanted me to say to you, Mr. Secretary, that he is now chairing 
a VA-HUD Subcommittee on Appropriations and could not be here. 
But he told me to express to you his appreciation for the call. 
He is, of course, a member of this subcommittee. He cannot be 
at two places at once.
    Senator Domenici.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI

    Senator Domenici. Contrary to your thoughts, I don't have a 
lot to say today, but I do have something to say.
    Senator Shelby. All right.

                   Support for ISTEA Reauthorization

    Senator Domenici. First, Mr. Secretary, I believe it is 
imperative as the ISTEA bill works its way through the other 
body and into conference that the administration, as soon as 
possible--and maybe it is already too late--come out in open 
support for it. We need the open support. Clearly, we cannot be 
magicians.
    If we are going to spend what is prescribed in that bill, 
then we don't have enough money for everything else that the 
President asked for. I personally hope that, because we cannot 
support a few things that he wants--and I am not now talking 
about the tobacco tax, Senator Lautenberg--if we cannot support 
other things, I hope he will not remain silent on the fact that 
we have had to spend substantial money to build the roadways of 
America which are in disrepair, and the mass transportation 
system. While it was slow getting started in America, mass 
transit is a very desirable commodity across this land. It is 
not just parochial. It is everywhere. It is as important as 
highways in many places, and in many respects it is a very big 
step up ahead of highways in terms of environmental 
contributions and the like.
    Now this is not a little bit of money. Again, we are not 
magicians. If we are going to fund this bill, then we have to 
find offsets to pay for it, and those normally will be 
restraints in spending someplace else. We are choosing to use 
the President's offsets, things that he found were not needed, 
but, obviously, he has spent them elsewhere.
    That creates a very serious problem.
    You worked with us during that debate and during our 
negotiations. We thank you for that. I do believe there are 
some in the administration--I do not say it is you, and I do 
not say it is the President at this point--but there are some 
who have expressed great concern about how much we are spending 
on highways versus other priorities that the President had 
sought in his budget.
    Let me assure you that I do not believe this is a 
Republican initiative. I don't think we have to run around 
saying we have ISTEA in our budget, and we are proud of it. I 
think we are going to say everybody wants ISTEA in our budget. 
I believe Congress will be there on that issue with over 90 
percent of the votes in this U.S. Senate.
    If I am reading the House right, it might get everybody in 
the House by the time they figure it out how to dole the 
funding out. I don't know whether they know how to do that yet. 
[Laughter.]
    In any event, excuse me. I should be a little more 
cautious. [Laughter.]
    I don't know that I can say it any stronger than that. I 
hope that in due course my good friend, Senator Byrd, when we 
proceed through this process, will assist us in trying to get 
this done in terms of White House support for it.
    We don't need it, and the Senator might remind me that it 
is our prerogative to spend money and authorize programs. I 
understand that. However, we still do have the President around 
who has a bully pulpit, and we need him supporting highway 
construction in the United States.
    I am not going to be able to stay for questions, so I am 
going to submit them through the chairman.

                               User Fees

    I do want to mention to the committee one very serious 
thing, and that is that part of the President's ability to pay 
for transportation programs comes from three user fees, one big 
and two small. The aviation user fee is $6-plus billion. I 
think it is interesting that at this late date, you have not 
submitted the language for that proposal to any committee. It 
is very important that that be done because if you write the 
legislation one way, it goes to the Finance Committee. If you 
write it another way, there is a chance the appropriators could 
do it if they wanted to.
    Frankly, we need to see how you are imposing that fee. You 
have two smaller fees, and there is no doubt about those. If 
the committee chooses to do them, they can do them under the 
leadership of our chairman.
    I would also say to all the Senators and to you, Mr. 
Secretary, there is a very strong movement abreast not to let 
the Appropriations Committee put on user fees, even if they had 
been within the jurisdiction of those committees heretofore. 
That will be something to watch.
    I don't know how we will meet some of these spending 
targets without some of these proposals. That will be an issue 
hovering around, and you will be confronted with it, Mr. 
Secretary, in terms of whether we get the right amount of money 
to spend or not.
    Thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Senator Kohl.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR KOHL

    Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby.
    Like the other Senators, Mr. Slater, I am very pleased to 
have you here along with Ms. Garvey and Admiral Kramek. We are 
talking about a tremendous expenditure over the next several 
years for transportation in our society. It is fully justified 
and I think fully necessary.
    A country is judged by the condition of its roads, its 
highways, its bridges, and its air transportation, and a 
country's ability to compete in this world, I think, is 
directly correlated with the condition of its transportation 
system. That is one of the most important things we do here, to 
appropriate money to see to it that the transportation system 
in our country is as modern and up to date as that in any other 
country in the world.
    So I recognize how important this authorization is and how 
necessary it is.
    My State is like most other States. The condition of our 
roads, our bridges, and our transit systems is not nearly what 
it should be and the requirements, the financial requirements, 
over the next several years are overwhelming. That money has to 
come from somewhere and a good deal of it comes from those of 
us here at the Federal level.
    So, again, I am pleased that we are making that initiative.
    Like Senator Domenici, I am concerned that we pay for it in 
a way that is responsible and in a way that is bipartisan. It 
is easy to say we are going to spend an awful lot of money 
before you decide where it is going to come from. But that is 
the hard part, deciding where it is going to come from.
    I trust that we, in our wisdom, will do it in a balanced 
and in a fair way. If we can do that, then I think we will have 
made some very important decisions with respect to the future 
of our country here, this morning and this year.
    So I am pleased to have you with us this morning.
    Thank you, Senator Shelby.
    Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Reid.
    Senator Reid. I would ask if I could submit some questions 
in writing.
    Senator Shelby. Without objection, we will submit your 
questions for the record and also those of Senator Domenici.
    Secretary Slater, your written statement will be made part 
of the record in its entirety. You may proceed as you wish.

                     Statement of Rodney E. Slater

    Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
committee.
    Let me thank you for the opportunity to come before you 
today to testify in support of President Clinton's fiscal year 
1999 transportation budget proposal. I will submit my written 
statement for the record.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Secretary Slater. Let me say at the outset that a number of 
questions have been asked by you. We had the occasion to answer 
some of them as they came forward and I am sure that others 
will be asked as you have the opportunity to individually ask 
questions. But for those that were asked, such as the request 
for information related to triple trailers, clearly understand 
that we will be responsive to those kinds of requests.
    Let me also say that I really thank the members for the 
education in transportation that this audience has been 
afforded as all of you have made your statements, dealing with 
its importance to the economy, focusing on the importance of it 
as it relates to safety, even dealing with the importance of it 
as it relates to national security and the positive impact that 
it can have on our environment.
    I would like to address some of those issues as well, as I 
come before you and talk about the President's $43.3 billion 
transportation budget for fiscal year 1999.
    This is a part of the first balanced budget to be submitted 
by a President in more than 30 years, and yet it still provides 
for a record level of investment in transportation.
    It continues the President's commitment to creating--as 
many of you have called for--a balanced, integrated 
transportation system that is clearly international in its 
reach, intermodal in its form, intelligent in its character, 
and inclusive in its service.
    In this regard, I am very pleased today to have the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Kramek, who will talk 
about the work we do in managing our waterways; and also 
Administrator Garvey, who will talk about the importance of 
aviation when it comes to working with maritime and giving our 
transportation system an international reach.

                       Transportation Investment

    When I took office a year ago, I reflected on what the 
transportation needs were today and what they are in the 
context of the 21st century and the new millennium. Clearly, 
safety was recognized as our top priority, but also there was 
the issue of wise investment.
    Mr. Chairman, you reminded us that last year we talked 
about cost effectiveness as it relates to infrastructure 
investment.
    We also have the question of integrating our transportation 
systems so that they become one national, balanced, integrated 
transportation system. And there is the need to bring a 
commonsense approach to the way we work together and the way we 
work with our partners in the private sector and the American 
people.
    We are working with the Congress to enact legislation that, 
I believe, adopts and responds to the principles that I have 
just referred to in an innovative and commonsense way. For 
example, the Congress recently passed Amtrak reform legislation 
that will allow Amtrak management, working with labor, to plan 
for the long-term future of this most important part of our 
transportation system.
    As we look at ISTEA reauthorization we are concerned about 
the issue of record-level investment, and we all want that. But 
if we look carefully at this piece of legislation, as all of 
you have noted in your comments, we see that we have the chance 
not only to strengthen the highway program and the transit 
program to deal with potholes and the like, but we also have 
the opportunity to enhance the environment, to give access to 
jobs for those moving from welfare to work, and to harness 
technology so as to enhance the quality of our transportation 
system.
    I commend the Senate for taking a major step forward just 
last week in passing ISTEA legislation that addresses all of 
these concerns that are priorities of this administration. I 
also note the fact that on that day, March 12, a year to the 
day after the President unveiled our National Economic 
Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act [NEXTEA] proposal, 
many of the principles that were talked about a year ago were 
reflected in this Senate legislation. So, clearly, you have the 
strong support of this administration to work with you to 
figure out how we make the necessary tradeoffs--to provide for 
record level investment in a bill that is also visionary in its 
focus.

                           DOT Strategic Plan

    Quickly, let me just talk about our strategic plan. I know 
that you have interests in that. This is a plan that will help 
us to put in place the kind of vision for a transportation 
future that all of you have mentioned, one that will allow us 
to enhance safety, to improve mobility, to promote economic 
growth and trade, to protect the environment, and to support 
national security.
    If you look at our bill, we provide $3.1 billion for safety 
programs, an 11-percent increase and a record 7.3 percent of 
our total budget. We will do much on the aviation front and we 
will do much across the board for transportation.
    Record level investment for infrastructure investment is at 
$30 billion, 42 percent higher than that of the previous 
administration. There is $1.1 billion for technology, $250 
million for ITS investment, $90 million for Flight 2000 
investment, and on and on.
    Let me close by saying that we also believe that, as 
transportation officials, we can enhance the environment. So we 
provide $1.9 billion in that regard, with $1.3 billion going 
for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
[CMAQ] Program. Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention 
the quality effort of the Coast Guard and all of the others who 
work with our transportation programs as we deal with the issue 
of national security.
    But the Coast Guard, because of its drug interdiction 
efforts--so vital to America's future and its security--is to 
be commended. That is why we have in our budget an increase to 
an amount of $437 million for their efforts.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I look 
forward to the questions that you have already thought of and 
will offer forthwith. But, more importantly, I look forward to 
working with you and ensuring that our Nation has the best 
transportation system in the world and a transportation system 
that can meet the challenges of a new century and a new 
millennium.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to come before 
you, and members of the committee, thank you as well.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Secretary Slater. We will insert 
your prepared statement in the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Rodney E. Slater
    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify in support of the fiscal year 1999 budget 
proposals for the Department of Transportation.
                                overview
    President Clinton's historic budget for fiscal year 1999, the first 
balanced budget in 30 years, ends the deficit three years ahead of 
schedule while continuing to invest in America and preparing us for the 
21st century.
    As the President said in his State of the Union Address: 
``Americans have pursued a new strategy for prosperity: fiscal 
discipline to cut interest rates and spur growth . . . investments in 
education and skills, in science, technology and transportation, to 
prepare our people for the new economy.''
    A budget of $43.3 billion is proposed for critical Department of 
Transportation (DOT) programs. This budget level is evidence of the 
Administration's continuing commitment to building an integrated 
transportation system that is intermodal in form, international in 
reach, intelligent in character and inclusive in service. The fiscal 
year 1999 budget request provides the resources to ensure a safe, 
efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets 
our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the 
American people.
    When I took office one year ago, I reflected on what we need to 
address transportation programs now and into the 21st century. In 
looking to the future, we can learn from the past. Today our 
transportation system is the best in the world. Why? Because of: 
technological innovation; infrastructure innovation; and institutional 
innovation.
    In the intervening period, we have developed a Strategic Plan that 
has been called the best in government.
                            strategic goals
    Philip Guedalla said in his book ``The Hundred Years'' that ``the 
true history of the United States is the history of transportation.'' 
Helping us to give form to our vision for a transportation system that 
will address the needs of the coming century are the Department's 
strategic goals to meet America's transportation needs by: enhancing 
safety; improving mobility; promoting economic growth and trade; 
protecting our environment; and supporting national security.
    Our vision of transportation for the new millennium is of an 
integrated transportation system that serves the United States by being 
fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient. It is a 
transportation system that is not just about concrete, asphalt and 
steel--but rather is about providing opportunity for all Americans. 
This vision for America's transportation system is supported by the 
goals and programs funded in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
                         measuring performance
    It is important not only to make transportation investments but 
also to determine their effectiveness. Fiscal year 1999 is the first 
year that we will formally submit performance measures. We have in fact 
developed aggressive measures, and I look forward to working with you, 
Mr. Chairman, and this committee, to examine the performance of our 
investments and thus ensure the best possible management of our 
resources.
                                 safety
    After taking office a little more than a year ago, I stated that 
safety must be the Department's number one priority. To give life to 
that concept, the Department's programs promote public health and 
safety by working toward elimination of transportation-related deaths, 
injuries and property damage.
    The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes a total of $3.1 billion in new 
appropriations for safety programs. This is an 11 percent increase over 
the fiscal year 1998 level and a record 7.3 percent of total DOT 
resources.
    Highway crashes in particular are a significant burden to our 
society, not to mention the impact on families and communities. In the 
21st century, we at DOT would like the news of someone being killed in 
a car crash to become a thing of the past. We have much work to do to 
make this happen.
    Our goal for fiscal year 1999 is to reduce the number of 
transportation-related deaths to fewer than those that occurred in 
1995, which was at a level of 44,407, despite a projected increase in 
miles traveled. It will not be easy to achieve these goals, but it is 
essential that we commit ourselves to do so.
    The fiscal year 1999 budget includes a 22 percent increase in 
funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
to $406 million, to advance highway safety. These resources will help 
encourage states to pass strong anti-drunk driving legislation and to 
strengthen occupant protection laws. They will also help states fight 
their highway problems directly through increased enforcement and 
education programs designed to meet local conditions. Funding will 
support the President's Initiative to Increase Seat-Belt Use 
Nationwide; increased research to improve our safety techniques; and 
expansion of the Safe Communities program, a community-based approach 
to improving highway safety. Such community-based programs have already 
shown results. For example, in Massachusetts, a community- based 
program has reduced fatal crashes by 18 percent, and alcohol-related 
crashes by 42 percent.
    The Motor Carrier Safety Program is proposed to increase by 18 
percent to $100 million, including funding for initiatives to improve 
safety by targeting unsafe carriers while reducing regulatory burdens 
on the safe ones. These programs work, and in fact we have seen a 
reduction in fatalities from large truck crashes from 1986 to 1996.
    Aviation safety funding is proposed to increase by 18 percent to 
$975 million to fund additional safety personnel and continue ongoing 
emphasis on assuring the safety of new entrant airlines. We plan to add 
45 new safety inspectors and certification personnel.
    Railroad safety funding is proposed to increase by over eight 
percent to $62 million to fund 32 new safety personnel and to 
strengthen the Federal Railroad Administration's new results-oriented 
approach to safety. In fiscal year 1999, we aim to reduce (from 1995 
baselines): the fatality rate from 1.71 to 1.57 or less per million 
train-miles, the number of rail-related crashes from 3.91 to 3.44 or 
less per million train-miles, the rate of crashes at highway-rail 
crossings from 2.85 to 2.40 or less per million train-miles, and the 
rate of rail-related trespasser fatalities from 2.81 to 2.58 or less 
per million train-miles.
    The Coast Guard's maritime safety funding is proposed to increase 
by nine percent to $808 million, to fund critical search and rescue, 
boating safety and marine safety programs. With these programs, we aim 
to reduce the number of recreational boating fatalities by ten percent 
from 1993 levels, and reduce the worker fatality rate on board 
commercial vessels from 52 per 100,000 workers in 1993 to 42 or fewer 
per 100,000 in 1999. This is only the beginning and we will continue to 
strive for even better results in the future.
    Overall, much of the increase proposed in the fiscal year 1999 
budget over the fiscal year 1998 appropriated levels is for safety 
programs. We propose this because it is our top priority and it is 
necessary to enhance the safety record even further in the coming 
years. Last year, this Subcommittee supported the increases in safety 
funding that we proposed for NHTSA and other programs. I appreciate 
that support and hope that we can work together to provide the 
additional safety funding increases proposed in this budget.
    I would now like to discuss the Department's cooperative working 
relationship with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 
Under this Administration, the Department's record of responsiveness to 
NTSB recommendations has substantially improved. We are proud of having 
achieved an 82 percent acceptance rate of recommendations since 1993, 
compared to a 70 percent rate from 1967 to 1992. Since 1993, we have 
closed nearly 800 recommendations issued prior to that time, in 
addition to the 495 we have closed that were issued since 1993.
    The Department takes seriously the safety issues presented on the 
NTSB's ``Most Wanted'' list. Over 75 percent of the 45 recommendations 
on the list issued to the Department are in the ``open acceptable'' 
category, meaning that the NTSB concurs with actions the Department is 
taking to address the recommendations. We believe our record and 
performance will continue to be high and we look forward to working 
closely with the NTSB to address current and future recommendations.
                                mobility
    Mobility means helping Americans get to where they need to go 
through an integrated transportation system.
Infrastructure Investment
    President Clinton's commitment to ``rebuild America,'' signaled his 
understanding that improvements needed to be made to the nation's 
transportation system. Working with both House and Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittees, we have increased transportation 
infrastructure investment to record levels--for the first five years of 
this Administration, 25 percent above the 1990-1993 average levels. Our 
fiscal year 1999 proposed level is a record 42 percent above the 1990-
1993 average levels.
    We are now beginning to see the results of these actions. 
Conditions of the National Highway System have improved by reducing the 
percentage of miles classified in ``fair'' condition or worse. Transit 
capacity has increased by 3.5 percent in just two years. Improvements 
have been made in nationally important roads and bridges and work has 
been undertaken on a number of airport capacity expansion projects.
    Our goals for fiscal year 1999 are to continue these improvements. 
We plan to: increase the percentage of miles on the NHS that meet 
pavement performance standards for acceptable ride quality; increase 
capacity and reduce delays in the national airspace system; and 
increase the number of intercity and commuter trains scheduled along 
the most congested segments of the Washington/Boston Corridor by 2005.
    The Federal Government cannot fund every project that is 
envisioned. However, we can continue to leverage the transportation 
dollar so it goes the furthest it can and meets the needs of all of the 
American people.
    The record $30 billion in Federal infrastructure investment that we 
propose for fiscal year 1999 does just that. The Federal-aid highway 
obligation limitation is proposed at $21.5 billion, equal to last 
year's record level. Included in this amount is a new $90 million 
program to improve the flow of goods and people across the borders. In 
addition, $100 million is proposed for a new infrastructure credit 
program and $150 million for State Infrastructure Banks. These two 
programs will help leverage other investments and bring projects to 
completion sooner.
    A total of $4.6 billion is proposed for transit capital funding. 
This includes $3.6 billion for Formula Programs, $100 million for 
Access to Jobs and Training and $876 million for Major Capital 
Investments. In that regard, transit capital investment is estimated to 
have averted $15 billion a year in congestion costs. Turning to 
people's needs, our Access to Jobs proposal supports the kind of 
programs which enabled Elaine Kinslow, whom President Clinton 
introduced during his State of the Union Address, to move from welfare 
to work. Again, by funding these programs we need to recognize that 
transportation is to serve the people. And what better way than to 
provide the opportunity for meaningful work and the means to get to and 
from that workplace.
    As part of NEXTEA, President Clinton proposed a record $175 billion 
over six years for surface transportation. Since then, the President's 
1993 deficit reduction plan and the strong economy have combined to cut 
the deficit faster than expected. Because of this progress, the 
President is willing to consider additional transportation funding 
within the context of the Balanced Budget Agreement.
    Surface transportation is but one part of our intermodal 
transportation system. The budget will provide the means for our 
aviation system to handle the growing number of flights. We propose to 
fund the airport grants program at last year's appropriated level of 
$1.7 billion. Some examples of the type of projects that may be 
financed are: new runways that increase capacity and allow airports to 
handle more traffic; new taxiways and operating areas to reduce ground 
delays; and various safety and security improvements.
    Passenger rail is another critical component of our nation's 
inclusive transportation system. The fiscal year 1999 budget includes 
historic funding levels for Amtrak--$621 million in capital in addition 
to the $2.2 billion available in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 
from the Taxpayer Relief Act. This funding will give Amtrak the ability 
to upgrade its system, and to replace aging rail cars in preparation 
for the demands of the 21st century.
Critical Operations
    Improvement in transportation operations for which the Department 
is responsible, most notably Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and 
Coast Guard, will also contribute to our mobility goals.
    Funding for FAA operations is proposed to increase by 5.5 percent 
to $5.6 billion. This will fund 185 additional air traffic controllers 
and 150 additional maintenance technicians. Additional funding is also 
proposed to make operational the air traffic control and aeronautical 
navigation equipment now being delivered as part of the air traffic 
control system modernization. This new equipment will further reduce 
the number of outages, reduce delays, and allow optimum use of capacity 
to accommodate growth in operations. To keep that modernization on 
track, $2.1 billion, 14 percent above last year, is proposed for FAA's 
facilities and equipment budget.
    We also are making every effort possible to ensure that critical 
air traffic control and other systems are compliant with proper fixes 
to the year 2000 date problem. FAA has completed assessment of all 
mission critical systems and 125 out of 209 such systems are already 
certified as year 2000 compliant. FAA plans to have all renovation of 
software and hardware that is needed for these remaining systems in 
place by September of 1998, and all testing and validation completed by 
January of 1999.
    Coast Guard's operating expenses budget is proposed to be funded at 
$2.8 billion, about two percent above last year's level. Its capital 
budget is proposed at $443 million, 11 percent above last year's level. 
It includes $28 million for a deepwater replacement capability 
analysis, so that we will be in a position to field the lowest cost, 
best systems to meet our deepwater fleet needs. To offset some of Coast 
Guard's capital investment, we are proposing fees to recover a portion 
of the Coast Guard's costs for its navigational services to commercial 
users.
                       economic growth and trade
    America's economy is in the best shape in a generation, with steady 
growth, high employment, low inflation, and low interest rates. Part of 
this success is due to investments which make transportation efficient 
and flexible, keeping costs low. Economic growth and trade represents 
an ultimate outcome for virtually all of our transportation programs.
    In addition to infrastructure investment and innovative financing, 
we also are looking to new technologies to help keep America 
competitive. We're proposing a total of $1.1 billion for research and 
development.
  --This includes $250 million for intelligent transportation systems, 
        which can cut by a third the cost of the new highway capacity 
        we need.
  --Also included is $90 million for Flight 2000, a demonstration of 
        technologies and operational procedures which will exploit new 
        capabilities such as GPS and aeronautical data link and will 
        lead to earlier introduction of free flight in the national 
        airspace system.
  --The Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System, proposed to 
        be funded at $8.5 million in fiscal year 1999, will provide 
        positioning, navigation, and timing accuracy for the nation's 
        surface transportation network. This system will help provide 
        for the safe and efficient movement of trains and other modes 
        of transportation throughout the nation.
    To further support economic growth, we at the Department must 
ensure that we are good stewards of tax dollars and that the management 
of our programs is the best that it can possibly be. To that end, the 
Department, and specifically the Federal Highway Administration, have 
taken very seriously an effort to consolidate field offices. We have 
made some progress, but much more is proposed for this year and beyond.
  --We are implementing field office co-location via sensible space 
        sharing to improve customer service, reduce costs and increase 
        efficiency. To date, NHTSA and FHWA have co-located in 
        Baltimore and work is underway to co-locate all DOT offices in 
        Kansas City. In addition, workgroups in Fort Worth and Denver 
        are developing plans on how to best serve the public through 
        co-location.
  --In order to provide one-stop shopping closer to major customers, 
        FHWA and FTA are setting up jointly-staffed metropolitan 
        offices in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago and New York 
        City.
  --FHWA, based on a task force review during 1997, plans to reduce the 
        number of its regional level offices. By the spring of 1998, 
        FHWA will complete a detailed implementation plan for this 
        reduction, including estimated costs and budget allocations. A 
        report to you on the review and the plans was delivered 
        recently.
    Our ultimate goal of economic growth can be hindered, however, when 
programs are held up and projects are delayed due to lack of 
authorization. Our Federal aviation and surface transportation programs 
need to be reauthorized this year.
    We are currently developing our proposal for aviation 
reauthorization, keeping in mind the recommendations made by the 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission. Our proposed surface 
transportation reauthorization, the National Economic Crossroads 
Transportation Efficiency Act, is pending before Congress and the 
Senate has just passed the ISTEA II bill. I applaud the Senate for 
helping advance this important legislation.
    As we work with Congress toward consensus on these two major bills, 
the President's proposal to establish a Transportation Fund for America 
will help us overcome some of the obstacles that have cropped up in 
past efforts. This fund highlights the importance of transportation and 
will assure users that, should Congress reduce mandatory spending or 
provide newly enacted revenues, these funds can be targeted for 
transportation spending.
                     human and natural environment
    The fiscal year 1999 budget includes several programs and 
initiatives aimed at reducing air and water pollution, preserving 
wetlands and open space, and making transportation facilities more 
compatible with the environment. No matter how much is done to improve 
the capacity and efficiency of our transportation system, we can not 
call our approach ``intelligent'' unless we tend to its effects on our 
environment, and ultimately our health.
    The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 
program, our largest environmental program, is pending reauthorization 
with ISTEA. It helps communities meet national standards for healthy 
air by funding innovative projects that promote transit ridership, 
clean fuel use, and emissions-reducing inspection and maintenance 
programs. A record level of $1.26 billion is proposed for CMAQ in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Both Coast Guard and FAA play vital roles in protecting the quality 
of the environment. For fiscal year 1999, the Department requests $309 
million for the Coast Guard to prevent pollution, conduct pollution 
investigations, and supervise federally-funded cleanups. We also 
request a total of $39 million to ensure that all DOT facilities are 
environmentally safe.
    Prolonged exposure to high-levels of noise is a critical 
environmental concern. To continue addressing this problem, the fiscal 
year 1999 budget includes funds in FAA's Airport Grant program to help 
families and businesses relocate away from airports where noise exceeds 
healthy levels, and to pay for sound insulation in existing property.
    To help improve transportation's energy efficiency, $10 million is 
proposed to promote the development and demonstration of Advanced 
Vehicles, Components and Infrastructure in cooperation with the 
Department of Energy. This research effort will be geared to 
demonstrate technologies for reducing emissions, enhancing energy 
efficiency and reducing dependence on foreign oil.
    The Department's environmental goals for fiscal year 1999 include 
reducing transportation-related emissions by one percent annually over 
ten years, and reducing the number of residents exposed to significant 
aircraft noise (65 decibels or greater) by 60 percent from 1995 levels.
                           national security
    DOT plays a critical role in ensuring that the transportation 
system is secure, that borders are safe from illegal intrusion, and 
that the transportation system can meet national defense needs in time 
of emergency.
  --To remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent terrorism, the fiscal 
        year 1999 budget includes $100 million for the FAA to continue 
        to purchase explosives detection equipment to be deployed at 
        our nation's airports.
  --Even though not in this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, I would like 
        to mention the $98 million included in DOT's budget for the 
        Maritime Security Program. The 47 vessels supported by this 
        program are committed to carry military cargo during war or 
        national emergencies.
  --Last year, the Coast Guard intercepted and confiscated a record 
        103,617 pounds of cocaine and 102,538 pounds of marijuana. The 
        fiscal year 1999 budget includes $437 million for the Coast 
        Guard's drug interdiction program.
    Our goals in the national security area for fiscal year 1999 are to 
increase the detection rate for simulated explosive devices and to 
reduce the flow of illegal drugs and migrants via maritime channels.
                               conclusion
    We in the Department of Transportation must set high goals and with 
our partners we must be architects of change. We must ensure our 
success in the 21st century by recognizing the crossroads we are at 
today--recognizing the need not only to invest in our current 
infrastructure, but to take full advantage of technology and leave a 
more efficient, safer, and environmentally sound transportation system 
for our children.
    The budget that we have proposed for fiscal year 1999 takes a major 
step in that direction. I look forward to working with this 
Subcommittee and the entire Senate and House to pass a forward-looking 
transportation appropriations bill and to ensure that critical programs 
are provided long-term reauthorization.

                    Expiration of STEA Authorization

    Senator Shelby. Last year a short-term funding bill, with 
which we are very familiar, the Surface Transportation 
Extension Act [STEA] of 1997, was enacted to fill the gap left 
by ISTEA's expiration on September 30. To get the money flowing 
to highway projects again, the extension legislation provided 
$5.5 billion in new funding authority for the major Federal-aid 
programs and gave States the flexibility to transfer, among 
other programs, unobligated balances left over from the first 6 
years of ISTEA, which was about $10 billion nationally.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. However, an obligation ceiling of 
approximately $9.8 billion was also in force. Most 
significantly, the States are not allowed to obligate any 
Federal-aid highway funds after May 1 of this year unless a new 
multiyear authorization bill was passed, which has been 
referred to.
    If reauthorization is not completed by May 1, will the 
States be able to continue their highway programs?
    Secretary Slater. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, they will 
not. This bill is important.
    Senator Shelby. It's imperative, isn't it?
    Secretary Slater. It is imperative in terms of the long-
term security of our transportation system, and also in giving 
those transportation officials at the State and local levels 
the assurance of knowing that there will be a smooth flow of 
needed infrastructure investment.
    I do commend the Congress for providing the extension. But, 
clearly, the Congress recognized the importance of 
reauthorization legislation by providing some limits to our 
ability to allocate and make resources available after a given 
date--May 1.
    Again, I commend the Senate for stepping up to the plate 
and moving their legislation expeditiously. Also, the House has 
expressed its commitment to do so as well.
    So I believe that the Congress is ready to act. Clearly, 
the administration is ready to work in partnership with you to 
act.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.

                     Enforcement of NHTSA Subpoenas

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, more people are killed on 
our Nation's highways each year than are killed in other modes 
of transportation combined. We have talked about this.
    Secretary Slater. That's correct. Senator Byrd mentioned 
it.
    Senator Shelby. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration is charged with promoting highway safety in our 
country. One of the primary responsibilities is to investigate 
product defects within the auto industry to help ensure that 
the cars we all drive are safe. My question is this, Mr. 
Secretary.
    When this agency conducts an investigation of a particular 
automobile and issues a subpoena to an automaker to provide 
information on that particular vehicle, and the automaker does 
not fully comply with the subpoena--either by providing false 
information or by simply withholding pertinent information--can 
the agency impose a fine or penalty of any sort on the company 
for failure to comply with the subpoena, or should it?
    Secretary Slater. Mr. Chairman, the agency can levy a fine 
for failure to comply with a subpoena. We can also carry the 
matter to court, and we have actually done both.
    Senator Shelby. OK.

                    Emergency Relief Highway Program

    Over the past 7 years, the Emergency Relief Highway Program 
has been funded at an average of $582 million per year, $100 
million of that coming from the annual ISTEA contract authority 
and the rest usually coming from a supplemental appropriation.
    Secretary Slater. That's correct.
    Senator Shelby. In your budget, you have only requested 
$100 million for fiscal year 1999. It is almost guaranteed that 
this will not be enough money and that the Department will be 
sending another supplemental request for emergency highway 
repairs to the Congress later this year.
    Would it make more sense for you to request a realistic 
number for the Emergency Relief Program instead of relying on 
supplemental appropriations for the program each year?
    Secretary Slater. Well, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, it 
is true that we have a record upon which to reflect. And if you 
were to look at what has happened, say, annually----
    Senator Shelby. They are not the only one who does that, 
now, to be fair.
    Secretary Slater. That's right. I understand. But if you 
look at what has happened annually over the last 5 years, you 
can see that the needs almost always have outstripped the $100 
million that we have requested.
    But I will say that in all of those instances, we have been 
able to come to the Congress when we have clear indication of 
what is needed in the form of a supplemental appropriation and 
to get those resources. In that regard, I would want to commend 
this committee and also the Congress for the effort that is 
currently underway to respond to the President's request for a 
$259 million supplemental to deal with this very issue.
    There are many categories where we probably would like to 
make a request for additional resources. But what we have tried 
to do is to offer a budget that is balanced, that reflects some 
appreciation for the history that we have--where we have 
provided funding for these purposes--with the knowledge that we 
can and have come to the Congress for supplementals once the 
need has become clearer.
    That is the way we chose to approach this matter on this 
occasion as well.

                               User Fees

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, the administration's budget 
request, as I mentioned in my opening statement, envisions over 
$200 million from user fee proposals that have either not been 
enacted by Congress or have had troubled implementation 
periods.
    I just want to set the record straight and say that this 
Senator is not interested in enacting any new user fees--
taxes--on the transportation community. I expect that no action 
will be taken this year on any of the user fee/tax proposals in 
the administration's budget. Accordingly, there will be 
substantial holes in the FAA budget, the Coast Guard budget, 
the Federal Railroad Administration budget, and the Surface 
Transportation Board's budget. And, to complicate matters, the 
Senate just passed an ISTEA reauthorization bill that envisions 
a substantially higher highway obligation limitation than the 
record level we appropriated for 1998, which will constrain our 
ability to find the resources to fill the user fee/tax budget 
holes.
    So we foresee the very real possibility of transportation 
budget shortfalls given the dual constraints of higher ISTEA 
driven expectations for highway spending and user fee/tax holes 
that are built into your budget request.
    Mr. Secretary, for the record, do you anticipate submitting 
any budget amendments that might address these shortfalls, and 
what potential cuts in the modal administrations can we take to 
offset the user fee holes? Have you thought that out?
    Secretary Slater. Clearly we have thought about it. It is 
our hope that, while some Members of the Congress have 
expressed their lack of support for user fees, as you have, Mr. 
Chairman, we will still have a good shot at making our case. 
The Congress has responded to some requests. The one example 
is, clearly, the FAA overflight fee issue.
    Now I say that, also willing to acknowledge that the U.S. 
District Court here in the District did recently find that to 
some degree we went a little far in implementing those fees. 
But they did not determine that overflight fees--user fees--are 
unconstitutional.
    So there may be some way for us to address that issue over 
time.
    But the big areas where we have requested user fees are 
clearly FAA and rail safety, and we just ask that we have the 
opportunity to work with you and members of the committee and 
Members of Congress as we work to address the question.
    We, too, were dealing with constraints, the desire to have 
a strong transportation bill but also to do it within the 
context of being able to submit the first balanced budget in 
over 30 years.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, so far so good, I think. I want to ask a 
couple of questions, some that may have a different slant than 
those of my friend and colleague, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, which is exactly where we would like to place 
you, right in the middle. You don't have to pick sides, but you 
have to come up with the right answer to satisfy both of us. It 
is not easy.
    Secretary Slater. It's not easy, sir, but we'll try.
    Senator Shelby. If you do that, you are going to be a great 
Secretary. [Laughter.]
    Senator Lautenberg. Last August, the Federal Highway 
Administration released its 1997 Federal Highway Cost 
Allocation Study. It showed that the heaviest vehicles pay 
considerably less in taxes than the costs they impose on our 
Nation's highway system.
    Now, clearly, the user fees these heavier trucks pay are 
not set high enough to compensate for the increased wear and 
tear that they cause to our roads and bridges.
    Are you reevaluating the current user fee system--and 
again, this is the first time you have to jump in the hole--to 
remedy this deficiency in the amount of user fees paid by the 
heavier trucks?
    Secretary Slater. Let me just say, Senator, that we are 
looking at user fees across a broad spectrum of the 
transportation industry. The ones that we have made a decision 
on are reflected in our budget.
    We continue to look at the question as it relates to other 
components of the industry, but no decision has been made at 
this time in those additional areas. The places where we have 
made a decision are reflected in our budget.
    Senator Lautenberg. Yes; because the cost allocation study, 
for instance, suggests eliminating the $550 cap on heavy 
vehicle use tax that applies to all vehicles registered that 
are above 75,000 pounds. Is that a change that you could 
support?
    Secretary Slater. Well, it is clearly a change that is 
worthy of consideration. But, again, I think the best approach 
is to keep an open mind on these kinds of issues and to look at 
all ways for addressing these kinds of concerns. That is the 
approach that we are taking as a Department.

                         Increased Speed Limits

    Senator Lautenberg. The Department of Transportation report 
on the impact of increased speed limits on the Interstate 
System discloses that fatalities and injuries increased 
nationally on interstate roads in 1996 while decreasing on all 
other roads, even though the interstate roads are considered 
the safest.
    This report also shows that the States that increased speed 
limits in 1996 experienced about 350 more interstate fatalities 
than otherwise would have been expected with the previous 
speeds.
    How many lives more do we have to lose before action is 
warranted?
    Secretary Slater. Well, Senator, as you know, the 
administration worked with you and others to retain a national 
speed limit. We were unsuccessful in that effort in 1995 and, 
as a part of the National Highway System [NHS] bill, the 
national speed limit was removed.
    We have been involved in a study and we have completed 1 
year of that effort. As you have noted, these changes have been 
discovered.
    I will say, though, that this is but 1 year, and what we 
want to do is to continue to assess this situation as we go 
forward. But that said, I want to make the clear point that 
this administration joins all of you who understand that safety 
has to be our top priority in pressing forward and aggressively 
on a number of fronts.
    I mentioned the President's national initiative to increase 
seatbelt use from 68 percent to 85 percent by the year 2000, 
and to 90 percent by the year 2005.
    We have already seen an increase in the seatbelt use rate 
to now approximately 70 percent, a historic level.
    We have also worked with you and others to deal with the 
issue of drunk driving, and we do have the success in the 
Senate of the 0.08 initiative and will work hard in the House.
    We have requested a 22-percent increase in NHTSA's budget, 
an 18-percent increase in the aviation budget, and an increase 
in the safety component of every modal budget of the Department 
of Transportation.
    I say that to just make the point that, while we have seen 
the issue of speeding increase the incidence of crashes and 
fatalities, we are working on a broad front to be aggressive 
when it comes to the issue of safety and its promotion, and 
working with our partners to ensure stronger laws and greater 
implementation.

                      Highways and Transit Balance

    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Secretary, with the passage of the 
ISTEA reauthorization bill recently in the Senate, it kind of 
follows in the tradition of the first ISTEA bill. They 
recognize the importance of mass transit as a critical link in 
our surface transportation network and establish a balanced 
approach to funding highways and transit, an approach that on 
many occasions you, Mr. Secretary, on behalf of the President, 
have applauded and highly recommended. You have heard people 
here talk on behalf of expanded transit funding.
    But on March 3, 1998, in a letter to Congress you talk 
about the emphasis on investment in transit and highways in 
order to rebuild America. You say transit should receive an 
equitable share of all the increases within the aggregate 
budgetary framework.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
    Senator Lautenberg. Do you agree that any increases in 
funding for highways and transit should maintain the historic 
80/20 balanced approach and provide funding for transit as well 
as highways in both budget authority and outlays?
    Secretary Slater. I do, without reservation.
    Senator Lautenberg. What can we do in the future to ensure 
such an intermodal and balanced approach to surface 
transportation? And that answer has to be short, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Slater. I think you can continue to do as the 
Senate has done. A couple of weeks ago, it dealt with the 
highway issue and made a lot of people happy by raising that 
amount by $26 billion. But then, in response to concerns raised 
by you and by the administration and others, it responded by 
raising the transit investment by $5 billion. I think that that 
sort of balanced approach----
    Senator Lautenberg. Would that get us to 80/20?
    Secretary Slater. It's about 80/20 when you look at those 
numbers added to what was currently being provided because we 
have actually seen a significant increase in transit funding 
over the last 5 years.
    Senator Lautenberg. I may have some questions about that 
ratio, Mr. Secretary.
    May I have just another minute of time, with the chairman's 
permission?
    Senator Shelby. Go ahead.

                  Public Information on Highway Safety

    Senator Lautenberg. I would ask that whatever you find in 
that study on highway speeds and fatalities, please get that 
information out fully across the country. People have to 
realize that it is nice to be able to get there sooner and 
quicker and it is boring to sit at 55 miles an hour on an open 
highway. But the carnage that results is something that we have 
to understand. There is a price to pay for it.
    I want the American public to make their decision based on 
the price that their neighbor, their own families, or that 
others in their community may pay.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Slater. Senator Lautenberg, we will disseminate 
that information.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.

                    Landing Slots at Gatwick Airport

    Senator Faircloth. This is a longer question and I am going 
to try to cut it down because you are familiar with it. It 
involves the Charlotte to Gatwick airports route.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir; that is a very important issue.
    Senator Faircloth. Your Department granted authority for 
U.S. Air to fly the route from Charlotte to Gatwick and they 
have simply refused to grant a landing slot to U.S. Air. I 
mean, they could fly over there very nicely, but they can't 
land.
    Secretary Slater. Which is a problem and we have to address 
it.
    Senator Faircloth. Yes.
    Now the British Airways are trying to get, and have an 
application for, Denver service.
    Secretary Slater. That's correct.
    Senator Faircloth. Are you going to block the Denver 
service until they grant landing rights for us at Gatwick?
    Secretary Slater. Let me just say, Senator, that we have 
made it clear to our counterpart in the United Kingdom and with 
the slot coordinator at Gatwick that we intend to see the 
agreement that we have reached pertaining to U.S. Airways 
honored and that we clearly are reflective on those kinds of 
issues as we are asked to make decisions related to the use of 
our airports.
    Senator Faircloth. That is an absolutely elegant statement. 
But are you going to tell them ``no Denver till Gatwick''?
    Secretary Slater. We are going to tell them that we intend 
to have Gatwick and that we are going to make a strong case for 
the benefit of our airline.
    Senator Faircloth. That is good enough. Thank you.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.

                     Inspection Stickers for Trucks

    Senator Faircloth. Chairman Shelby and I talked to you, 
rather wrote you a letter, about a very dangerous and fatal 
truck crash in western North Carolina. The truck was way, way 
beyond any inspection and had problems with brakes as well as 
many, many other problems.
    I think every State in the Nation requires an inspection 
sticker on an automobile, and for most States it is clearly on 
the windshield, where you can see it--the date the vehicle was 
inspected, all of that.
    Why don't we have that with the trucking industry? And I 
say that I am part of the trucking industry. We are still 
running 30 or 40 trucks and we have them inspected. But why not 
have it clearly visible so that any time an officer stops a 
truck, he can just glance at it and tell whether there is an 
inspection sticker on it every time the truck crosses a way 
station?
    Secretary Slater. Senator, let me just say that I have 
gotten the letter and, clearly, you have raised a very 
important issue here.
    We should look into the issue of whether there should be a 
decal or something that is visible that indicates that a truck 
has been inspected, and we will do that.
    The other thing that we have done that I think speaks to 
the issue is that we have requested an additional $15 million, 
which brings our total to $100 million, the amount of money 
that we will provide in grants to State governments for motor 
carrier enforcement and the hiring of personnel for their 
inspection programs.
    Also, as a result of our streamlining effort, we have 
designed a program that will allow us to focus on troubled 
carriers or carriers that have a history of violating our 
regulations. We plan to implement that program as a result of 
this new initiative as well.
    I do believe that those decisions and approaches speak to 
the concern that both you and Chairman Shelby have raised.
    Senator Faircloth. It just seems to me to be such a simple 
solution to a major problem. Again, I make clear that the 
trucking industry is a great one and their motto, ``If you got 
it, a truck brought it,'' is the truth.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
    Senator Faircloth. I have been a part of that industry and 
strongly supportive of it in every way. But the very idea of 
allowing trucks to whip back and forth, some scab operator with 
no inspection, no brakes, and you would have to have a search 
warrant and a week to find out whether it had been inspected or 
not is--I mean, if he stopped at a way station, how long would 
it take them to find out if it had ever been inspected? They 
couldn't do it.
    I think this is a very simple answer to a problem that 
needs addressing.
    Secretary Slater. It is. Let me just say that the Senate 
has responded to our request for stronger laws in that regard, 
for a stronger program, and the ability to levy stronger 
penalties. We appreciate that. It is a part of our ISTEA 
reauthorization proposal.
    Senator Faircloth. All right.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.

                           Year 2000 Problems

    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As my colleagues are discovering about me, I am becoming 
absolutely obsessed with a particular topic. It is not going to 
go away. It is going to get worse--that is, my obsession, at 
least.
    The topic is the year 2000 problems. As chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Technology and Financial Services in the 
Banking Committee, I have pushed this to the limit that I can 
in terms of our problems facing banking. I will have some 
rather pointed questions for Administrator Garvey with respect 
to the FAA. But I would like to raise with you, Mr. Secretary, 
your responsibility for the entire Department.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
    Senator Bennett. The FAA obviously has the highest 
visibility here. There are airlines which have already 
announced they will not have airplanes in the air on New Year's 
Eve 1999. I tell people the three places you do not want to be 
on New Year's Eve are on an airplane, in an elevator, or in a 
hospital as those are the areas where the processors are most 
likely to cause you serious problems.
    But I have visited with the President's czar on Y2K 
problems, Mr. Koskinen--newly appointed as assistant to the 
President--and assured him of my absolute support in everything 
he is doing, and I was heartened by having him tell me that 
they are not going to try to solve all the problems. Instead, 
they are putting the responsibility for solving the problems on 
the heads of each Cabinet officer and each administrative 
agency head.
    The possibility of the Coast Guard not functioning properly 
because of computer breakdowns connected with Y2K, the 
possibility of your communications system worldwide not 
functioning, aside from the FAA, the possibility of the 
computers you have built into highways not functioning, the 
chaos that can come if our transportation system shuts down can 
be extremely severe and must be, I think, your highest 
priority.
    So this is just a reminder of what you are going to hear 
and are hearing, I am sure, from the President. I understand 
from Mr. Koskinen that the President himself raised this issue 
at a Cabinet meeting.
    Secretary Slater. Yes, he did.
    Senator Bennett. I have talked to the leader about it here 
in the Senate, about the necessity of our beefing up our 
oversight activity on behalf of the Senate. Something may be 
moving forward on that fairly shortly.
    I cannot think of anything more devastating than to have us 
get to a year from now or a year and a half from now, in late 
1999, be faced with these kinds of breakdowns that are clearly 
coming, and say, ``Gee, why didn't we think about this 
before?''
    So at the risk of being the boy who cries wolf, in this 
case, there are real wolves and they are all computer driven. 
We have to be as serious as we possibly can.
    So as I have said, I will reserve my questions on Y2K 
problems with the FAA for Administrator Garvey and I know that 
she is in the forefront of the most visible challenge you face 
in this area.
    But I could not let the opportunity go by and not stress to 
you the obvious concern that the Senate must have of your 
duties over and above the FAA to see to it that the entire 
Department of Transportation gets on a triage approach as 
quickly as possible.
    Now triage I had explained to me by Maj. Charles Emerson 
Winchester on a late night rerun of ``MASH.'' I didn't 
understand what the medical term meant until one of those 
reruns. But it is this: You do what is necessary to see that 
the patient survives and then put him or her into a 
convalescent situation later and turn your attention to the 
next patient that is in danger of dying, instead of staying 
with this one patient all the way through. You do triage to do 
what is necessary for survival.
    The best estimates I have seen show that at least 15 
percent of the computers in America will not be Y2K-compliant 
by the year 2000 and at least 25 percent of the computers 
worldwide will not be.
    As Alan Greenspan told the Banking Committee, it is not an 
issue of having a big problem. It is an issue of having a small 
problem that is interconnected to everything else and, 
therefore, turns into a big problem very quickly.
    Fifteen percent of our computers not working is a really 
scary number to me. I would hope you would be prepared to 
respond to questions on this later on, in writing, as we do our 
best to work together.
    This is not a partisan issue. This is not a legislative 
branch/executive branch issue. This, frankly, is a national/
international issue which, if we don't get a handle on it in 
terms of setting priorities, will trigger a worldwide recession 
and in some parts of the world a serious depression.
    It is too late to solve the problem. We have to move into 
the triage mode and say what are the mission-critical systems 
and what do we do to keep those mission-critical systems up, 
and we'll worry about solving the whole problem after we have 
survived the turn of the millennium and do the convalescence 
later on.
    So I appreciate your being here and just wanted to 
underscore that and give you an opportunity to respond.
    Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Slater. Senator, clearly, as you have noted, you 
will have the opportunity to visit with Administrator Garvey 
about the FAA, in particular, when she comes before you. But 
let me say that she is in the forefront of helping us to deal 
with this issue in the FAA.
    I would also note that the Coast Guard has done a 
significant job in this area as well and is working, along with 
others in the Department, to actually reach out to our 
stakeholders, those with whom we work in the private sector. 
This is occurring across the board.
    So I use the two of them--Admiral Kramek, the Commandant, 
and also Administrator Garvey--because they are here and will 
follow me.
    Let me also say that just this week we had a DOT-wide 
discussion on this very issue. We used our Monday morning staff 
meeting to talk about it in great detail.
    I can assure you that everyone within the Department who 
understands the issue understands that we have to redouble our 
effort and that we have to be vigilant in dealing with this 
concern. It is a top priority.
    The final point that I want to make is that it is 
interesting how we talk about transportation, and we go into 
the discussion that it is more than concrete, asphalt, and 
steel. It is more than cars, planes, and trains.
    In the past, it was only that, but now it is also the 
communication system--technology being added to this--that we 
have recognized as transportation beyond the traditional sense. 
And that gives us an understanding of how it is evolving as a 
system for the future.
    Your point is well taken. This Y2K issue really forces us 
to concentrate on how dependent our transportation system has 
become as it relates to technology and communications.
    I can assure you that this Department will shoulder its 
responsibility in ensuring that we deal with the Y2K challenge 
and that we deal with it effectively. And we look forward to 
working with you and the Congress in doing that.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you.

                          Submitted Questions

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we all have some written 
questions--Senator Domenici and I do, Senator Lautenberg, and 
others. Does anybody else have any written questions for the 
record?
    If not, I would like to move on to the second panel. We 
thank you for your appearance, we thank you for the work that 
you have done with us, and we look forward to working with you 
in the future.
    Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
                        Office of the Secretary
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
                           general questions
    Question. The Government Performance and Results Act required 
executive agencies, including the Department of Transportation, to 
submit strategic plans outlining the goals they expect to accomplish 
and methods to measure to what extent they achieved those goals. I 
commend the Department for garnering the highest rating among all 
agencies for its first strategic plan submitted this past September. 
However, despite the high rating, the Department's plan also contained 
some weaknesses. For example, the General Accounting Office's critique 
of the strategic plan noted that it did not fully describe the 
operational processes, skills, technology, and resources required to 
meet the Department's long-term goals. This month the Department 
provided the Congress its first performance plan specifying how the 
Department will measure its performance in attaining its strategic 
goals. How has the Department rectified the problems identified in the 
strategic plan in preparing the performance plan?
    Answer. The DOT Performance Plan fully addresses all of the issues 
identified in the GAO report on the Strategic Plan. The Performance 
Plan provides extensive detail on the operational processes, skills, 
technologies and resources--the means and strategies--for accomplishing 
each performance goal in the plan. These goals, in turn, are linked 
explicitly to the outcome goals in the Strategic Plan. And where the 
Strategic Plan described Corporate Management Strategies only briefly, 
the Performance Plan provides a full chapter on this, detailing DOT's 
initiatives and milestones in each area.
    The Performance Plan provides a full 16-page appendix addressing 
management challenges that have been raised previously by GAO and the 
Inspector General. Strategies and milestones are provided for each of 
32 areas, including specific examples cited as missing in the Strategic 
Plan:
  --time frames for completing air traffic control modernization;
  --oversight of highway and transit projects;
  --meeting the long term funding needs of Amtrak; and
  --adequacy of financial and other management information.
    The GAO report also mentioned improvements to Amtrak's Northeast 
Corridor as an example of information that is missing in the Strategic 
Plan. The Performance Plan includes specific performance goals to:
  --Complete reconfiguration of selected interlockings with New Jersey 
        Transit, to achieve a 10 percent increase in the number of 
        intercity and commuter trains scheduled along the most 
        congested segments of the Washington/Boston Corridor by 2005 
        (to 365 trains/day).
  --Reduce the Amtrak trip time between New York City and Boston from 4 
        hours 45 minutes in 1997 to 3-hour service in 1999 (early 
        fiscal year 2000).
  --Increase the percentage of Amtrak trains arriving on time, from 76 
        percent in 1995 to 87 percent in 1999.
    While the Strategic Plan takes an ``umbrella'' approach to long 
term goals, the Performance Plan includes for each goal the 
contributions from specific modes, and modal-level performance goals 
that support the Department's strategic goals.
             national highway traffic safety administration
                      safety defects investigation
    Question. It is my understanding that when NHTSA investigates 
complaints from consumers, it sends a request for information to the 
automaker. Then, NHTSA will determine from the automaker's response 
whether a defect is what led to the complaints and, if so, whether that 
defect is related to motor vehicle safety. How dependent is this whole 
undertaking on reliability of the information that is provided by the 
automaker?
    Answer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducts 
defects investigations in two phases: the Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 
and the Engineering Analysis (EA). During the PE phase, the Office of 
Defects Investigation (ODI) sends an information request (IR) to the 
manufacturer, asking for certain limited information, including data on 
complaints, crashes, and injuries, as well as other general 
information. This information, along with the information obtained from 
consumers, is analyzed to determine if further investigation is 
warranted. If ODI determines that additional investigation is 
necessary, it upgrades the investigation to an EA. During the EA phase, 
ODI conducts a more detailed and complete analysis of the character and 
scope of the alleged defect. The EA builds on the information collected 
during the PE and supplements it with appropriate inspections, tests, 
and surveys conducted by ODI, as well as additional information 
obtained from the manufacturer and suppliers. It is critical that the 
information received from the manufacturer at all stages of an 
investigation be accurate and complete.
    Question. How does NHTSA determine whether a defect is safety-
related?
    Answer. Some defects are inherently related to motor vehicle 
safety, such as steering wheel separations, brake failures, and vehicle 
fires. With respect to other defects, NHTSA weighs the safety risk in 
terms of the frequency and severity of the consequences of the defect. 
It compares the defect under investigation with past investigations, 
recalls, and court decisions. NHTSA also examines any intervening 
factors which may have contributed to the consequences, such as 
unexpected driver behavior or owner misconduct.
    Question. When NHTSA determines the existence of a safety-related 
defect, what action can it take against the manufacturer that is under 
investigation?
    Answer. When the NHTSA Administrator makes a Final Decision that a 
safety-related defect exists, an order is issued directing the 
manufacturer to notify all owners, purchasers and dealers of the defect 
and to provide a cost-free remedy. If the manufacturer does not comply 
with the recall order, the government (through the Justice Department) 
will go to court to compel the recall.
    Question. Could a recall order cost a manufacturer millions of 
dollars?
    Answer. A recall could cost a manufacturer millions of dollars if 
the remedy is expensive or a large number of vehicles are involved. 
Manufacturers do not routinely provide information to NHTSA on the 
costs of their recalls, so NHTSA cannot speculate on how much is spent 
on recalls.
    Question. Does this cost give the automakers a financial incentive 
to avoid a recall notice?
    Answer. Whenever the cost of a recall becomes substantial, there is 
an incentive to avoid a recall. However, NHTSA actively monitors the 
industry to assure that manufacturers do not allow this incentive to 
interfere with their statutory duty to conduct recalls when a safety 
defect or noncompliance exists.
    Question. Is NHTSA's authority to order a recall limited to eight 
years from the first purchase?
    Answer. A recall encompasses both notification and remedy. There is 
no time limit on a manufacturer's obligation to notify NHTSA, owners, 
purchasers, and dealers of a safety-related defect or a noncompliance 
with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, by statute (49 
U.S.C. Sec. 30120(g)), the requirement that a remedy be provided 
without charge does not apply if the vehicle (or equipment) was bought 
by the first purchaser more than eight years before the defect or 
noncompliance is determined to exist (three years for tires). If a 
vehicle is less than eight years old at the time a recall is commenced, 
the manufacturer must provide a cost-free remedy even if the vehicle is 
not brought to the dealer within the eight-year period.
    Question. After that period of time, is NHTSA's only option to 
order automakers to notify their customers about the safety defect?
    Answer. NHTSA can order a manufacturer to provide a remedy for 
vehicles older than eight years at the time of a recall order; however, 
it cannot require that the remedy be cost-free.
            automakers response to requests for information
    Question. How heavily must NHTSA rely on the candor of the 
automaker under investigation to respond fully to NHTSA's requests for 
information?
    Answer. NHTSA does rely on manufacturers to provide accurate and 
complete information in response to information requests, particularly 
at the early stage of an investigation. In addition, NHTSA has the 
authority to seek civil penalties if it discovers that a manufacturer 
has failed to provide all requested information.
    Question. If NHTSA discovered that a manufacturer withheld 
requested documents, what would NHTSA's recourse be against the 
manufacturer?
    Answer. NHTSA could issue an administrative order to the 
manufacturer to provide the documents. Additionally, NHTSA could notify 
the manufacturer that it is liable for civil penalties and attempt to 
reach an administrative resolution of penalties under 49 U.S.C. 
Sec. 30165 for the prior withholding of information which had been 
required by an information request issued under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30166. 
If a manufacturer did not comply with an order or settle the potential 
penalties administratively, NHTSA could refer the matter to the 
Department of Justice for injunctive relief or penalties, respectively. 
Moreover, depending on the circumstances, NHTSA could refer the matter 
to the Department of Justice for consideration of a possible criminal 
action.
    Question. What if NHTSA didn't discover that the documents had been 
withheld until several years after its investigation had closed?
    Answer. NHTSA could order the manufacturer to provide the 
documents. If NHTSA felt that there was still a safety concern, NHTSA 
could reopen the defect investigation or other proceeding in support of 
which the documents had been requested.
    Question. How often has NHTSA used its subpoena power to assist the 
Agency in getting the information it needs?
    Answer. NHTSA records indicate that it has issued administrative 
subpoenas in five enforcement investigations, out of a total of more 
than 2,000 investigations. NHTSA has generally found that informal 
information requests and special orders have been adequate to obtain 
the information it needs.
    Question. What is the largest fine NHTSA has ever issued for 
withholding information, and how large was the company fined, in terms 
of annual profits?
    Answer. NHTSA does not issue fines. The only significant case that 
appears to relate to your inquiry involved Toyota Motor Corporation of 
Japan, where the penalty sought for withholding information was part of 
a larger civil penalty claim. The case was settled without 
apportionment of the settlement payment among the various civil penalty 
claims. The Toyota Motor Corporation is a multi-billion dollar 
corporation.
    Specifically, NHTSA collected a civil penalty of $250,000 from 
Toyota Motor Corporation on April 25, 1994, to settle a lawsuit filed 
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 
the complaint that it filed in the lawsuit, NHTSA alleged that Toyota 
had failed to conduct a timely recall to remedy a fuel leakage problem 
in 1981-1989 Land Cruiser vehicles. The complaint also alleged that 
Toyota had failed to provide NHTSA with accurate and complete responses 
to investigative requests. The complaint sought maximum civil penalties 
of $808,000. Of this figure, $800,000 was for the company's failure to 
conduct a timely recall. The remaining $8,000 was for eight instances 
in which the company failed to provide NHTSA with accurate and complete 
information in response to investigative requests. That represented the 
statutory maximum of $1,000 per violation, which has since been 
adjusted for inflation to $1,100.
    Question. Are these fines intended to have a deterrent effect on 
the automaker?
    Answer. These civil penalties should have a deterrent effect.
    Question. Does NHTSA need more authority in this area than Congress 
has given it?
    Answer. Under current law, a manufacturer's failure to provide 
accurate and complete information in response to NHTSA's information 
requests results in a potential penalty of $1,100 for each instance. 
However, even a few failures of this nature have the potential to 
seriously compromise an investigation. Raising the penalty level for 
such failures could enhance the agency's enforcement capacity.
                                 ______
                                 
                 Question Submitted by Senator Domenici
             commercial zone for luna and dona ana counties
    Question. I want to thank you for your support of my recent 
amendment to ISTEA to create a commercial zone in southern New Mexico. 
I also appreciated your staff's work to provide technical assistance 
and help in drafting the amendment in a way which was acceptable to the 
manager of the bill.
    As I am sure you are aware, because these two border counties have 
been designated as a commercial zone, trucks carrying products from 
Mexico now will be able to travel directly to their destinations in New 
Mexico without having to engage in the costly and inefficient task of 
offloading their cargo onto American trucks just inside the border.
    I believe that we need to have an open border with Mexico to 
facilitate trade and promote investment in the southern part of New 
Mexico and throughout all of the southwest. I also believe that this 
commercial zone puts New Mexico on the same level playing field with 
other southwestern states which have border commercial zones.
    Can I count on your support for the New Mexico commercial zone as 
the ISTEA bill moves through the House and in conference?
    Answer. Given the unique situation in Luna and Dona Ana Counties, 
the administration does not object to your amendment as currently 
written.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
                             highway issues
                              speed limits
    Question. The Department of Transportation report on the impact of 
increased speed limits on the Interstate system discloses that 
fatalities and injuries increased nationally on Interstate roads in 
1996 while decreasing on all other roads even though Interstate roads 
are considered safest. This report also shows that States that 
increased speed limits in 1996 experienced about 350 more Interstate 
fatalities than would have been expected before the speed limit change. 
The report also states that ``close monitoring of crash trends on roads 
with increased speed limits should continue and, if warranted, 
countermanding actions taken.''
    Besides restoring the national speed limit to 55 MPH, what kinds of 
countermanding actions can you in good conscience support as being 
truly effective?
    Answer. In the absence of restoring the National Maximum Speed 
Limit (NMSL) to 55 MPH, the Department believes it will be important to 
continue to focus, at the national and state levels, on key program 
areas of traffic safety, e.g., increasing restraint use, strict 
enforcement of existing traffic laws, informing and educating the 
public regarding specific traffic safety issues, implementing roadway 
and traffic safety improvements, and ameliorating the effects of 
alcohol-involved driving to compensate for possible increases in 
fatalities and injured persons that may be related to higher speed 
limits.
                           light truck safety
    Question. Over the past decade, the popularity of light trucks has 
increased enormously. Light truck sales accounted for almost half of 
the passenger vehicles sold last year, and they now represent about \1/
3\ of all registered passenger vehicles. More Americans die each year 
in light truck-to-car crashes than in crashes between two cars. This is 
true even though car-to-car crashes remain more common and there are 
twice as many cars in use as light trucks.
    I know that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) is studying the dangers posed by light trucks to other 
vehicles. After completing this study, what concrete actions will the 
Department take to improve the compatibility of light trucks with other 
passenger vehicles?
    Answer. Compatibility between light trucks and cars is one aspect 
of a larger study at NHTSA on improving crash compatibility between all 
categories of light passenger vehicles. Improvements in crash 
compatibility, in general, and between light trucks and cars, 
specifically, will likely require design modifications both to the 
struck vehicle--to improve its crashworthiness--as well as to the 
striking vehicle to reduce its aggressivity. In the case of LTV's, 
NHTSA is currently conducting a series of crash tests to better 
understand the nature of the incompatibility between LTV's and cars. 
These crash test results will be coupled with the results of detailed 
finite element simulations to suggest design enhancements necessary to 
improve compatibility. The results of this study will serve as the 
foundation for the directions for any potential rulemaking in this area 
the Department might pursue.
    Question. Occupants of sport utilities are as likely to die in 
crashes as car occupants, because sport utilities are four times as 
likely as cars to roll over in an accident. NHTSA has done some 
research recently on the tendency of even the larger sport utilities to 
roll over. Do you plan to conduct further research on the safety risks 
sport utilities pose to their own passengers?
    Answer. Yes. NHTSA is currently performing research to identify 
driving maneuvers that could trigger rollovers in vehicles that are 
prone to on-road-untripped rollover crashes. This research has proven 
to be very complex, since any single requirement that may prevent 
rollovers might cause manufacturers to incorporate designs that may 
degrade other aspects of vehicle performance. NHTSA plans to continue 
this rollover prevention research in fiscal year 1999. Additionally, 
NHTSA will use the Variable Dynamics Test Vehicle to study the 
effectiveness of yaw stability augmentation systems that are currently 
available in some vehicles in preventing rollovers. Besides the 
rollover prevention research, NHTSA also has an active rollover crash 
mitigation research program which will continue in fiscal year 1999.
    Question. Does the research done to date indicate that new design 
standards for sport utilities aimed at increasing their stability 
should be developed?
    Answer. NHTSA's current rollover prevention research is attempting 
to develop the basis for either a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
to reduce the number of on-road, untripped rollovers or a consumer 
information program to identify vehicles that show unusual rollover 
tendencies toward untripped rollovers. An announcement as to how NHTSA 
will proceed is planned for early 1999.
                   truck safety at u.s./mexico border
    Question. Two successive GAO reports have shown no improvement in 
the safety of trucks and drivers from Mexico coming across our southern 
border, and no improvement in the quality and frequency of inspections 
conducted on both sides of the border. (a) What is the Department's 
plan to systematically upgrade the number of inspections and to use 
Level 1, the best kind, to ensure that commercial drivers from Mexico 
use only safety equipment on our roads? How can you ensure that these 
drivers have proper licensing and issuance? (b) How are you going to 
ensure that long-haul truck drivers from Mexico are not entering the 
U.S. already fatigued and sleep-deprived when they operate on our 
roads, given the fact that Mexico has no truck driver hours of service 
limits? (c) How can you ensure that Mexican government really does its 
job of ensuring that trucks and drivers from Mexico are safe before 
they cross our southern border?
    Answer. To ensure that safety is not compromised as the NAFTA 
cross-border provisions are implemented, the DOT, in partnership with 
the States and local governments, has established a permanent 
enforcement presence and begun an intensive driver and vehicle 
inspection program along the Southwest border. In fiscal year 1997, 
over 19,000 Mexican drivers and 18,000 Mexican vehicles were inspected.
    To continue to enhance enforcement activities, the DOT has been 
providing border States with special funding over and above the basic 
allocated Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grant levels. 
This funding is intended to assist with short-term resource needs and 
DOT has supported reauthorization legislation that would provide States 
with the funding they need to build inspection facilities, hire 
additional law enforcement personnel, and purchase equipment needed to 
establish a permanent border management program.
    While States are encouraged to conduct Level 1 inspections, 
national performance-based MCSAP criteria may also require that States 
identify the primary reasons for the out-of-service rates and then 
conduct special inspections which focus on these violations.
    To operate a commercial vehicle in the U.S., Mexican drivers must 
possess a valid ``Licencia Federal'' (Mexican commercial driver's 
license) and proof that the carrier has insurance coverage consistent 
with the U.S. standards. To ensure that drivers are operating with 
valid licenses, DOT has developed an electronic capability with 
Mexico's Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes to exchange 
information on driver status. Like all other drivers operating in the 
United States, Mexican drivers may be required to show evidence of 
compliance with these requirements upon entry into the U.S. or during 
roadside inspections.
    Working with the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes, the 
FHWA and the four border States have provided a significant amount of 
training and technical assistance to Mexican carriers to ensure they 
know and understand the requirements of operating in the United States. 
We believe Mexican carriers seeking to do business in the U.S. are 
generally well aware of the rules and regulations with which they must 
comply.
    Mexican drivers must comply with the same safety requirements, 
including hours of service and log book requirements, as U.S. drivers 
when operating commercial vehicles in the U.S. The U.S. enforces these 
regulations through State and Federal roadside inspections. For those 
drivers who are exempt by regulations from carrying a log book because 
they are operating within a 100-air-mile radius of their normal work 
reporting location, the driver's duty status (hours of service) is 
verified by interviewing the driver and by reviewing date, time, and 
location information included on related transportation documents such 
as shipping papers, vehicle registrations, the driver's license, and 
Immigration and Naturalization Service crossing permits.
    Drivers who operate from the interior of Mexico beyond the 100 air-
mile radius of their normal reporting location are placed out-of-
service if they do not comply with the log book requirements. The 
United States, Mexico, and Canada have developed a strategy to assure 
that motor carriers are in compliance with their safety obligations 
prior to beginning cross-border operations.
    The three countries have agreed on these critical safety areas that 
will be reviewed before a carrier can begin cross-border operations: 
(1) safety management systems, (2) driver qualifications, (3) hours of 
service compliance, (4) drug and alcohol testing, (5) condition of 
vehicles, (6) accident monitoring programs, and (7) compliance with 
regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials. In 
addition, we have agreed on several elements that are essential to 
implementation of a successful cooperative and coordinated compliance 
and enforcement program, such as clear communications between 
governments and with motor carriers; development of electronic data 
bases and exchange of safety information for companies, drivers, and 
vehicles; and involvement of State and local officials.
    We are now discussing with Mexico implementation of specific 
elements of a compliance and enforcement program in Mexico that will be 
directed at motor carriers that will be operating across the border 
into the United States including those that transit the United States 
on their way to Canada. These elements are:
    (1) Deployment of roadside commercial vehicle inspectors trained in 
accordance with established North American procedures in Mexico's 
northern states and documentation of these inspections as part of an 
overall safety oversight process. Roadside enforcement is key to an 
effective and visible enforcement program.
    (2) Development of a method for gathering safety information from 
individual motor carriers and providing that information to the United 
States. Adequate and accurate information on motor carrier applicants 
is essential to the process of assessing a carrier's safety performance 
during the application process.
    (3) Implementation of a motor carrier safety management oversight 
system for those carriers with U.S. operating authority. Such a program 
is important to establishment of a permanent monitoring and enforcement 
program in Mexico; further, it is paramount to the development of an 
effective North American motor carrier safety program.
    We believe that, taken as a whole, these initiatives will help 
ensure that trucks and drivers from Mexico are safe before they cross 
our southern border.
                   commercial driver hours of service
    Question. Why is the agency prepared to revise commercial driver 
hours of service limits when there has been no systematic demonstration 
of how appropriate monitoring and enforcement of current hours of 
service limits could improve driver alertness and avoid the safety 
hazards of fatigue and sleep deprivation?
    Answer. The FHWA is not prepared to revise the commercial driver 
hours of service limits at this time. The FHWA, however, has learned a 
great deal about human performance and circadian effects in relation to 
sleep deprivation. These types of effects were unknown, or not well 
known, when the ICC developed the original rules more than 60 years 
ago. The FHWA now has the opportunity to analyze whether such effects 
may contribute to safer operations.
    The FHWA continues to analyze the research and comments to the 
November 5, 1996 ANPRM. The FHWA will not be prepared to do anything 
until it completes thorough analyses of all the research, statutory and 
executive order requirements for regulatory analyses (including 
benefit-cost analyses), and consultation with appropriate DOT staff.
               national motor carrier advisory committee
    Question. The Department supports the National Motor Carrier 
Advisory Committee which deals with commercial motor vehicle safety 
issues. In fiscal year 1996, the Committee held no meetings but cost 
taxpayers $22,900, according to the General Services Administration's 
(GSA's) 25th Annual Report on Advisory Committees. The Committee also 
held no meetings in fiscal year 1997, even though GSA estimated a cost 
of $85,300 for the Committee. (a) Can you explain why this Committee 
has not met in over two years? (b) Is this advisory committee fairly 
balanced and is a cross-section of highway safety organizations 
represented on the Committee? (c) Has the Department decided whether it 
will renew the charter of this Committee?
    Answer. The National Motor Carrier Advisory Committee (NMCAC) has 
not met in over two years because the FHWA no longer needs to use this 
Committee for the purposes originally envisioned. The GSA estimate 
assumed continuation of the NMCAC. The membership of the NMCAC was 
balanced and reflected a cross-section of highway safety interests, 
including former Congressman William Lehman, Judith Stone of the 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Honorable Anthony 
Montelione, Presiding Judge in Cook County, among others.
    The Department is not renewing the charter of the NMCAC.
                      roof crush standard/rollover
    Question. The current roof crush standard requires a test which 
does not really show how well a passenger car vehicle would resist 
deformation or intrusion in a full rollover crash. Over the last 
several years NHTSA has periodically reported on its research to revise 
the existing roof crush standard and establish a dynamic standard to 
protect occupants in rollovers. When do you expect to begin rulemaking 
to set this badly needed safety standard?
    Answer. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216, Roof 
Crush Resistance, specifies the minimal requirements for roof structure 
integrity for vehicles under 2,722 kg (6,000 pounds) GVWR. It requires 
that these vehicles resist 1\1/2\ the vehicle's unloaded weight without 
sustaining more than 125 mm (5 inches) of roof crush when a rectangular 
load plate is applied to the vehicle's roof structure over the front 
occupant compartment.
    NHTSA has been and is continuing research to examine the relevance 
of this standard to actual real world rollover crashes. From this 
research, NHTSA has shown some relationship between the risk of head 
injuries for belted occupants (in rollover crashes) and the reduction 
of headroom due to roof intrusion. These findings were documented in a 
Society of Automotive Engineering publication titled, ``Determination 
of the Significance of Roof Crush on Head and Neck Injury to Passenger 
Vehicle Occupants in Rollover Crashes.''
    Recently, NHTSA completed testing using the FMVSS 216 test 
procedures and dynamic drop test procedures. The results of these tests 
are now being analyzed to determine which test approach may provide the 
better correlation to real world injury producing rollover events. It 
is anticipated that NHTSA will make a regulatory decision on future 
efforts to improve rollover occupant protection by the end of 1998. 
This summer NHTSA will make available to the public the results and 
reports on all testing on its rollover related research.
    Question. You indicated more than a year ago that you would be 
willing to revisit a rollover standard for some kinds of rollover 
crashes. When will rulemaking start on such a proposal?
    Answer. NHTSA has initiated a short-term research effort to explore 
what might be done to address single vehicle on-the-road rollovers. 
Last summer, NHTSA began Phase I of its testing by selecting some 
maneuvers that are currently used by vehicle manufacturers, consumer 
publications, or voluntary standards organizations to assess the 
rollover resistance of vehicles. Three sport utility vehicles were run 
through each of these maneuvers. This testing will continue in the 
spring of 1998. The most promising maneuvers from Phase I will then be 
used in Phase II testing. In the summer of 1998, Phase II will run 12 
vehicles (3 cars, 3 pickups, 3 vans, and 3 sport utility vehicles) 
through the maneuvers chosen from Phase I. The results will then be 
analyzed and NHTSA expects to make a decision by the end of 1998 on 
future research and/or rulemaking actions for addressing rollover 
safety.
    Question. Given the intense and continually growing interest and 
knowledge of the public about car safety design and performance, such 
as air bags, for example, how soon are you going to decide on a really 
informative standard to warn potential buyers about passenger vehicles 
that have poor resistance to rollover? Would you consider doing the 
same thing for a new roof crush standard, to provide ratings for 
consumers on vehicle resistance to roof crush in rollover crashes?
    Answer. The Phase I and II rollover propensity testing is scheduled 
to be completed this fall. Results from this research will be used to 
make a decision on a rollover propensity standard and/or consumer 
information. The Department plans to make this decision by the end of 
1998. More immediately, NHTSA has proposed a change to the rollover 
warning label for sport utility vehicles (SUV's) to make it more 
effective by using graphics and brighter colors to replace the current 
15 year old text-only design. Focus group research has shown that 
consumers are much more likely to notice and heed labels with this type 
of design. Determination of approaches for informing consumers about 
roof crush resistance will follow decisions on future actions regarding 
the current roof crush standard.
                                 amtrak
 differing funding levels in original request to omb and final budget 
                                request
    Question. In its original submission to OMB, the Department 
requested $705 million for Amtrak. This number reflected the annual 
amount absolutely necessary to achieve the balance of Amtrak's capital 
needs and cover operating expenses, as approved by Amtrak's Board of 
Directors last September. However, in its final budget request, the 
Administration included only $621 million of capital funding, and 
directed Amtrak to use funds provided in the TRA for its annual 
operating expenses. This request is $84 million less than the amount 
Amtrak must have in order to continue operations over the next year 
without taking out commercial loans. If $705 million is the absolute 
minimum needed in order for Amtrak to balance its books for fiscal year 
1999, how do you justify requesting only $621 million?
    Answer. Both the Department and OMB agreed that the optimum long-
term strategy for Amtrak was to fund the Corporation's September 1997 
strategic plan which envisioned a total Federal funding commitment of 
approximately $5 billion between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2002. 
The Administration's request, when taken with the funding available 
under the TRA, would provide that level of funding. The President's 
fiscal year 1999 budget includes $621 million in capital appropriations 
to be spent according to the same capital project investment criteria 
used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). With this expanded 
definition of Amtrak capital, the Amtrak Board of Directors has 
supported the workability of the President's budget.
                    use of taxpayer relief act funds
    Question. Funds provided in the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA) were 
intended to be used solely on capital improvements, not operating 
expenses. In its resolution, the Amtrak Board opposed, in the strongest 
possible terms, using the TRA funds for operating expenses. The Board 
emphasized that those funds should be reserved for high rate-of-return 
projects that will decrease Amtrak's reliance on Federal operating 
support. If Amtrak were to borrow funds provided in the TRA for capital 
expenses, would it not then be dependent on future Federal 
appropriations in order to repay that amount?
    Answer. Amtrak's September 1997 strategic plan estimated that 
Amtrak would require approximately $5 billion in total Federal 
financial assistance between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2002. 
Whether or not Amtrak were to borrow funds provided in the TRA, the 
recapitalization of Amtrak would be dependent on future Federal 
appropriations. Under the President's fiscal year 1999 budget, Amtrak 
funding will equal the amount under the TRA--$1.1 billion plus the 
proposed appropriation of $621 million. Significant capital 
appropriations are also proposed for the outyears ($571 million in 2000 
and $521 million annually through 2002). For appropriated funds, the 
President's budget assumes an expanded definition of capital that would 
give Amtrak the flexibility to spend capital according to the same 
definition of capital used by the transit industry. This proposal will 
ensure that TRA funds are spent on high-yield capital investments that 
will reduce Amtrak's operating costs.
                                transit
              balanced approach to highway/transit funding
    Question. What will you do in the future to ensure such a truly 
intermodal and balanced approach to surface transportation?
    Answer. We will continue to work with the Congress to ensure that 
funding levels are balanced and equitable and will continue to make our 
position clear in communicating views to Congress on the 
reauthorization legislation as it moves forward.
                      access to jobs and training
    Question. The Federal Transit Administration's budget request 
includes $100 million for the Access to Jobs and Training initiative. I 
support that initiative. However, I am concerned that, by including it 
as part of your flat-funded transit budget, you are suggesting that 
instead of supplementing existing transit programs, funding for this 
program should be subtracted from funding available for transit formula 
grants. Would you support funding this program as a supplement outside 
the transit program, so that transit formula funds would not be 
diverted?
    Answer. Yes, within the overall transit funding levels proposed by 
the Administration. While we are proposing that Access to Jobs be 
within the Formula Programs account, we are not proposing to reduce 
formula funding now available to transit agencies. By moving to Formula 
Programs the funding that currently goes into discretionary bus grants, 
we are increasing the amount of Federal transit funding distributed 
across the nation.
                                 ______
                                 
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Kohl
              compensation for damage to assistive devices
    Question. Over the past few months, my office has been in contact 
with the Department regarding the case of Mr. Jeff LaDow, a resident of 
West Allis, Wisconsin, who suffers from a disability and whose $16,000 
wheelchair was irreparably damaged during the course of a flight on one 
of the major airlines.
    As you know, DOT regulations limit the maximum liability for claims 
with respect to assistive devices at $2,500. Clearly, the $13,500 
difference between the cost of Mr. LaDow's equipment and the maximum 
compensation available to him proves that in some instances this cap 
may need to be updated.
    What can be done to address this discrepancy and to ensure that 
this compensation cap is not impeding both legitimate claims as well as 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act? Is legislative 
action necessary to address the problem?
    Answer. Currently, DOT regulations prohibit air carriers from 
setting liability limitations for claims for assistive devices at an 
amount less than twice the liability limit for lost or damaged baggage, 
which is currently $1,250 for domestic travel. (There is a pending 
proposed rule to increase the minimum baggage liability limit to as 
much as $2,000.) U.S. carriers have chosen to limit their liability, 
both for baggage and for assistive devices, to the minimum limitation 
set by the Department, thus all carriers of which we are aware 
currently limit their liability for assistive devices to $2,500. The 
Department expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that 
would require airlines to reimburse passengers for the full value of 
assistive devices which are lost or damaged by the air carrier. No 
legislative action is necessary to address this issue.
                        loran-c radionavigation
    Question. Earlier this year, I contacted the Department with regard 
to the Loran-C radionavigation system. Marine, aviation, land--even 
telecommunications users--in Wisconsin have all told me of the value of 
this technology from a transportation safety and cost-benefit 
perspective.
    As you know, in the past two fiscal years Congress has agreed with 
them and provided about $8 million for the revitalization of the Loran 
infrastructure. Under the 1996 Coast Guard Reauthorization legislation, 
the DOT was required to formulate a plan for future funding and upgrade 
of the Loran infrastructure. I understand you have consulted with the 
firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton for data collection and cost-benefit 
analysis. Are the preliminary results of the Booz-Allen study 
available? Does the data support Loran retention, and what is the 
status of the Department's funding plan?
    Answer. The Booz-Allen report on Loran-C will be delivered to DOT 
in May 1998. Once we receive and review the plan, we will be able to 
respond to the requirements of the Coast Guard reauthorization.
                  communications system pilot project
    Question. Safety has been one of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's top priorities. With the cooperation of the Commerce 
and Defense Departments, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation 
recently began an innovative safety initiative--a share communications 
system pilot project. This system will provide important voice dispatch 
and centralized communciations for all emergency responders and 
government agencies in SouthCentral Wisconsin, aiding the day-to-day 
communications of state troopers, municipal police officers, 
firefighters and guard members, to name a few, and helping them respond 
to problems faster and more effectively. The concept has also been 
endorsed by Vice President Gore's ``reinventing government'' 
initiative. Hopefully the system will eventually be expanded to cover 
the entire state.
    Is the Department aware of this project? If this turns out to be an 
effective safety-enhancing program that could be of benefit to other 
parts of the country, what role could the Department or the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration play in terms of promotion, 
outreach or funding?
    Answer. The Department is aware of this emergency communications 
program in Wisconsin. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) has promoted development of innovative solutions 
to communications problems as part of its ``EMS Agenda for the 
Future.'' The EMS Agenda acknowledges the challenge of limited band 
width availability for emergency communications and recommends 
development of shared systems that can serve the joint needs of EMS, 
fire, law enforcement and other emergency providers. The Wisconsin 
system will pilot test an innovative partnership of several public 
safety and military agencies to deploy a joint system which promises to 
provide greater efficiency and service for all. If this initiative is 
successful, the concept could be promoted for consideration by other 
states. NHTSA would promote it as part of our ongoing promotion of 
successful examples of local or state programs realizing the visions of 
the EMS Agenda for the Future. As a follow up to the EMS Agenda, NHTSA 
is recognizing and promoting
successful examples of local system upgrades that are consistent with 
the recommendations in the Agenda. An EMS Agenda Implementation Guide 
will be released this spring and a national conference will be 
conducted during EMS Week in May to recognize innovative local 
programs.

                    Federal Aviation Administration

STATEMENT OF HON. JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR

                            U.S. Coast Guard

STATEMENT OF ADM. ROBERT E. KRAMEK, COMMANDANT

                       introduction of witnesses

    Senator Shelby. Our second panel will be Ms. Jane Garvey, 
FAA Administrator, and Admiral Kramek, Commandant of the Coast 
Guard.
    If you would both come to the witness table, we would 
appreciate it.
    Your written testimony, that of both of you, Ms. Garvey and 
Admiral Kramek, will be made part of the record in its 
entirety. We appreciate your appearance and we appreciate your 
patience.
    Ms. Garvey, you may proceed as you wish.

                      statement of jane f. garvey

    Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say 
that I will keep my remarks very brief and submit my longer 
statement for the record.
    It is a pleasure to appear before you and before this 
committee to discuss the FAA's budget request for 1999. What I 
would like to do is to speak of the budget in the context of 
three areas--safety, security, and system efficiency. These are 
the areas where I have directed the agency to focus their 
attention. These are the areas that I believe the American 
people will judge us by.

                                 safety

    First of all, as the Secretary said, safety is really the 
Department's top priority. It is the heart and soul of what we 
do. When I came to the agency in August, I asked colleagues at 
the FAA how many safety recommendations do we have in front of 
us. I was told that we have about 1,000 and, even when you 
eliminate the duplication, we have about 450. That is a very 
large number for any agency to focus on effectively.
    Over the last several months, I have worked closely with 
our stakeholders. I have worked closely with our partners, and 
with industry to focus that agenda. To focus it in a way that 
is actually doable; focus it in a way that it is based on 
operation-quantifiable safety data.
    It is very clear that, in order to lower the accident rate, 
it is imperative that we identify and implement the accident 
prevention measures that have the greatest potential benefits. 
That really is what we are doing. I believe that the 
President's budget will allow us to implement that agenda in a 
way that is effective.

                                security

    A second priority for us is improving aviation security. 
The White House Commission gave us a comprehensive plan for 
enhancing security. Many improvements have already been made. 
They include the installation of significantly improved 
security equipment in a number of our airports around this 
country. We have, I believe, a very aggressive implementation 
schedule and we are moving forward in partnership both with the 
airports and with the industry. By September 1, 1998, the FAA 
will have more than 500 pieces of explosive detection equipment 
at U.S. airports. The President's budget includes $100 million 
to continue to deploy the critical equipment at our Nation's 
airports.

                           system efficiency

    Another priority is system efficiency. A significant amount 
of work has already been done to modernize the air traffic 
control system. In 1997, thanks to strong financial support 
from this committee, the FAA installed more than 1,500 pieces 
of new equipment, ranging from the very simple, basic 
equipment, such as radios, to much more complex and new 
equipment like Voice Switching and long-range en route radar.
    We are in the midst of major acquisitions to replace our 
computer systems at all the en route and airport terminal 
facilities. In addition to operating the systems, which are so 
critical and so important, these computers will really provide 
the platform for future enhancements, where we will achieve the 
greater productivity gains and greater user benefits.

                    national airspace modernization

    As Senator Faircloth mentioned a little bit earlier, the 
whole issue of modernization is really one of our greatest 
challenges. I know that a significant amount of work has 
already been done in the area of modernization. We call the 
creation of the National Airspace System, the work that we are 
looking at, the architecture, if you will. It is really a 
significant piece of work, the result of work done by people 
within the FAA, as well as industry.
    Last fall, what I did was to convene a modernization task 
force. I asked for representatives from the industry. I asked 
for members of the union as well as FAA executives to be at the 
table. I want to stress that it was important to us to have the 
unions there. They operate the system. They really need to 
understand it and raise the questions, just as we have. I asked 
the task force to focus on two areas. One is to take a look at 
the architecture, the ``what'' the system will look like; 
second is to reexamine the ``when'' and the ``how'' of 
implementing the system improvements. I am very pleased to say 
that we are really seeing a growing consensus. One of the 
points the task force has made, which I think is 
extraordinarily helpful, is that we need to put in place some 
building blocks now. We need to look at modernization, look at 
those results and those impacts that we can make now in the 
system. That, really, is what we are moving out to do. Again, I 
would say that the President's budget really allows us to move 
forward with modernization and to move forward in an 
incremental fashion, a fashion that I really think makes some 
sense.

                            year 2000 [y2k]

    Let me also touch on the Y2K problem. I know that members 
of the committee and Senator Bennett will have many more 
questions, and I am happy to answer them. But, very briefly, 
the critical question for us, as it is for you, is will the FAA 
meet the challenges as the countdown to January 1, 2000, 
continues. My answer is, yes.
    I have to say that this is something that is 
extraordinarily important to me, personally, and to the agency 
as well.
    Last month, I appointed a new FAA manager. He reports 
directly to me. His name is Ray Long. We have opened a command 
center at Tyson's Corner. We have people from around the 
country who are detailed here and are working solely on this 
issue.
    We have a wonderful business partner in Coopers & Lybrand. 
They are working side by side with us--a good, public/private 
cooperative effort. We have developed timelines, we have 
developed benchmarks to ensure that our computer systems are 
Y2K compliant before the turn of the century. We are working 
very closely with the inspector general. We have moved our 
dates forward and, at the Secretary's request, are constantly 
looking to see if we can move those dates, if we can pull them 
ahead even more forward. I know that it is going to take 
vigilance. I know it is going to take real effort on all of our 
parts. I do believe we are on the right track and I believe we 
have brought the right resources to bear on what is a really 
critical issue for all of us.

                           president's budget

    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe this President's budget 
request allows us to move ahead on each one of these 
priorities. It gives us an increase in operations which 
recognizes the need to hire more controllers, maintenance 
technicians, safety inspectors, as well as certification 
personnel.
    It includes a request, as Senator Faircloth mentioned, for 
airports at $1.7 billion, a very important program for us. It 
includes an increase in the facilities and equipment 
appropriation, allowing us to move ahead on modernization.
    We think it is a good, strong, solid budget, and I think it 
is going to serve us well. To end on a personal note, I want to 
reiterate what the Secretary said earlier, and that is to thank 
all of you for the support that you have given to us, as an 
agency, and to me personally. Each one of you has been 
extraordinarily generous in both your personal time and your 
commitment of support. I appreciate that and look forward to 
working with you and with members of this committee.
    Thank you very much.

                           prepared statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Ms. Garvey. We will insert your 
prepared statement in the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Jane F. Garvey
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to 
appear before you today, and I want to thank all the members of this 
Subcommittee for your support of the FAA programs. I would like to 
discuss the FAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request in the context of 
three areas where I have directed the agency to focus its attention: 
safety, security, and system efficiency.
                                 safety
    Safety is the agency's top priority. I am pleased to report that we 
have a three-pronged program to enhance aviation safety. One, we are in 
the final process of developing our focused safety agenda, which we 
will announce shortly. In order to lower the accident rate, it is 
absolutely imperative that we identify and implement the accident 
prevention measures that have the greatest potential benefits.
    Two, we are making significant strides in developing a new safety 
model where government can be both a partner and an enforcer. No one 
entity, whether public or private sector, can lower the accident rate 
alone. This is not to say that we will give up our regulatory 
responsibility. Not at all. It's just that there is a great deal to 
gain from collaboration.
    Three, while working together we must recognize and adhere to our 
own responsibilities. On the public sector side, the FAA needs to 
acknowledge that paperwork does not equal safety. This is why I am so 
pleased with what we are doing to improve and streamline our oversight 
and rulemaking processes.
    In terms of air transportation oversight, we know the current 
system cannot produce the changes necessary to significantly lower the 
accident rate. We have focused too much on symptoms and not enough on 
cures. By the end of this year, we will implement a new oversight model 
based on a system safety approach.
    As for rulemaking, we shortened the time to develop rules by re-
engineering the rulemaking process. Rules will be developed more 
quickly than before. More important than shortening the process, is 
building on quality early in the process--before, rather than after, 
the fact.
                                security
    My second priority is improving aviation security. We have a 
comprehensive plan for enhancing security. In fact, several 
improvements already have been made. These include the installation of 
significantly improved security equipment, as well as enhanced 
procedures and methods for implementing this equipment throughout the 
system. As many of you know, we are operating on an aggressive 
implementation timetable, and we are moving forward in partnership with 
industry and airports. By September 1, 1998, the FAA will have more 
than 500 pieces of explosives detection equipment at U.S. airports.
                           system efficiency
    My third priority is system efficiency. A significant amount of 
work already has been done to modernize the air traffic control system. 
In fiscal year 1997, for example, the FAA installed more than 1,500 
pieces of new equipment--ranging from basic equipment such as radios 
and distance-measuring equipment to systems as new and complex as the 
Voice Switching and Control System and the long-range en route radar. 
We are in the midst of major acquisitions to replace computer systems 
at all en route and airport terminal facilities. In addition to 
upgrading existing systems, these computers will provide platforms for 
future enhancements where we will achieve the greatest productivity 
gains and user benefits.
    You and I know that the issue of modernization is one of our 
greatest challenges. A significant amount of work has already been 
done, including the development of the FAA's modernization plan, which 
we refer to as the national airspace system ``architecture.''
    To build on this work, last fall I convened a modernization task 
force with representatives from all sectors of aviation. I asked the 
experts to focus on two areas--one, take a good look at the 
architecture, and, two, reexamine the ``when'' and the ``how'' of 
implementing system improvements.
    With the architecture, we know we have the ``what'' for the 
aviation system for the next century. As for the ``when'' and the 
``how'' I am very pleased with the growing consensus among the entire 
aviation community.
    What is key to this consensus is the acknowledgment that the new 
system is more than acquiring new technology. It must be human-centered 
and we are working closely with our labor partners and involving them 
early in the process as we develop and install the tools they will be 
using. We know the modern ATC system must include new procedures and 
training, focus on human factors issues, and fully consider private 
sector avionics and certification.
                               year 2000
    With respect to the Y2K issue, the question on everyone's mind is: 
Will the FAA meet the challenges as the countdown to the January 1, 
2000, continues? My answer is an unequivocal ``Yes.'' Last month, I 
appointed a new FAA Y2K manager. With the help of our business partner, 
Coopers and Lybrand, we are developing stringent and disciplined 
agency-wide plan to ensure that all our computer systems are Y2K 
compliant before the turn of the century. And, I can assure the 
subcommittee that air traffic safety will not be compromised in the 
slightest.
    There is one last point I would like to make before addressing our 
budget request. Since joining the FAA last August, I have been 
addressing various personnel issues at the agency. We are making 
progress and we are taking the difficult and necessary steps to achieve 
a culture change at the agency.
                               operations
    For fiscal year 1999, the President's Budget requests $5,631 
million for FAA Operations, $295 million more than appropriated for 
fiscal year 1998. This increase recognizes the urgent need to hire more 
controllers, maintenance technicians, safety inspectors, and 
certification personnel.
    I also want to bring to the subcommittee's attention that the 
recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals vacating our overflight 
user fees has, in effect, reduced the fiscal year 1998 program level in 
Operations by $84 million. Currently, we are assessing the impact of 
this reduction and our options with the Department of Transportation 
and the Office of Management and Budget.
                       grants-in-aid for airports
    The fiscal year 1999 request for the Grants-in-Aid for Airports 
program is $1.7 billion. As part of the Administration's 
reauthorization package, we are examining the current AIP formula and 
distributions. FAA must have the necessary flexibility to direct 
investments to high priority projects such as safety, security, and 
capacity projects. Mitigating the impacts of aircraft noise also will 
continue to be a major focus.
                        facilities and equipment
    For fiscal year 1999, $2,130 million, a 14 percent increase ($255 
million) from the enacted level in fiscal year 1998, is requested in 
the Facilities and Equipment appropriation.
                 research, engineering and development
    For fiscal year 1999, $290 million is requested to support the 
Research, Engineering and Development program. This request represents 
a 46 percent increase from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level of $199.2 
million. The $90 million for the Flight 2000 program accounts for most 
of this increase. Flight 2000 is a planned operational evaluation of 
the technologies, procedures, and human factors involved in free 
flight, using Alaska and Hawaii airspace. I see Flight 2000 as a 
critical component of NAS architecture and key to deploying major 
communications, navigation, and surveillance systems on a broader 
scale.
                               conclusion
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members 
of this Subcommittee for the support you have provided to, and for, the 
FAA, and to assure you of our willingness to work closely with you. 
This completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to 
any questions you have at this time.

                      Statement of Admiral Kramek

    Senator Shelby. Admiral Kramek.
    Admiral Kramek. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a 
pleasure to appear before you and this distinguished committee 
this morning.
    Senator Shelby. Will this be your last appearance?
    Admiral Kramek. Yes, sir; this will be my last appearance 
before this committee.
    As you know and as I know Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey 
and Senator Faircloth from North Carolina know, the Coast Guard 
is one of the great assets of the American people and has been 
for the over 207 years of our history. We are a unique agency 
in that we are both an armed force, a law enforcement agency, 
and also a very important link in transportation in our 
maritime mode, which we have not really addressed too much this 
morning.
    We also return $4 in benefit for every $1 in budget given 
to the Coast Guard.
    From a trade standpoint, Mr. Chairman, America is still an 
island nation. Ninety-five percent of our exports and imports 
come by sea. That amount of trade is expected to triple in the 
next 15 years, and if we are worried about triple trailers now, 
things are going to get worse.
    I have just visited the great ports of Long Beach and New 
York, amongst others. Containers are stacked up as far as the 
eye can see and so are the other modes of transportation trying 
to get in there to remove them.
    We are worried about the mega ships of the future that will 
come to our ports and the people who, in conjunction with that, 
want to use our seashores and keep them free from pollution.
    These ships are just about beyond belief. We are familiar 
with some. We know about the 6,000-container container ship, 
where the containers, stacked end to end, would reach 20 miles. 
Those are in common practice now coming into our ports. The new 
ones on the drawing board are for 8,000 containers.
    As for passenger vessels, I think we are all amazed when we 
see cruise ships or other passenger vessels that have 2,000 or 
3,000 passengers. I can tell you new ones being designed now 
and getting ready to be constructed will have 8,000 passengers.
    In fact, there is one on the drawing board here this 
morning that they hope to build at the turn of the century that 
might be 4,000 feet long, have 20,000 apartments on it, an 
airport, a hospital, and would carry 40,000 passengers.
    Our Coast Guard has to be ready to deal with all of these 
things in the 21st century. At the same time, we streamlined 
and we feel we are a model of Government downsizing. We have 
reduced over 4,000 people in the last few years and have saved 
over $400 million a year in our budget.
    We are now the smallest we have been since 1965. In fact, 
your Coast Guard is smaller than the New York City police 
department, to put it in perspective.
    Yet we have more work than ever to serve the American 
people. But we have had some great advances in technology and 
quality management in order to maintain our services. We have 
not reduced our operations at all.
    This budget allows me to maintain those current services. 
It also allows me to order the minimum quantities I need on 
current contracts for ships, rescue boats, and buoy tenders.
    It also positions us for the future because in this budget 
is a very, very important investment project for our deepwater 
acquisition. This budget asks for sufficient funds to conduct 
an analysis of our capabilities in the deepwater environment 
that will lead to a replacement of the system of cutters, 
aircraft, and command and control systems that we need to 
manage our maritime area both at our coasts and worldwide at 
the turn of the 21st century.
    Most importantly, this budget provides sufficient money for 
me to bring on the people I need to do the job, to pay their 
salaries, and to provide for parity with the other members of 
the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting me here 
today. My written statement may be made part of the record and 
I am ready to answer any questions you may have.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Admiral. We will insert your 
written statement in the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Adm. Robert E. Kramek
    Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear before this 
distinguished subcommittee today to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal 
year 1999 budget request and its impact on the service, the nation, and 
those we serve.
    During the past four years, the dedicated men and women of the 
Coast Guard have continued to do what they have done for the past 208 
years. Through their outstanding efforts we have:
  --Saved more than 19,500 lives and nearly $9.3 billion in property.
  --Prevented more than 370,000 pounds of cocaine, marijuana, and other 
        illegal drugs from reaching America's streets and school yards.
  --Responded to more than 64,000 reports of water pollution or 
        hazardous material releases.
  --Boarded more than 59,000 fishing vessels to check for compliance 
        with safety and preservation laws.
  --Interdicted or assisted more than 75,000 migrant aliens attempting 
        to illegally enter the United States.
    The Coast Guard has also accepted the challenge to operate and 
manage more effectively. The result is a lean Coast Guard which stands 
proudly as a model of better government at less cost.
                       operating the coast guard
    To provide our unique services to the public, in fiscal year 1999 
the Coast Guard requests $2,772 million in Operating Expenses (OE) and 
$67 million in Reserve Training Funds. Included in this request are the 
necessary funds to restore the Coast Guard work force, currently under 
strength, and funds to provide adequate quality of life for Coast Guard 
personnel and their families. To continue delivering current services 
at the requested level, I have had to identify nearly $58 million in 
internal savings. The Reserve Training Request funds a Selected Reserve 
strength of 7,600 personnel that are part of Team Coast Guard and are 
integral to all of our operations. I request your full support for both 
the Operating Expenses and Reserve Training requests, as any reductions 
will directly impact the Coast Guard's ability to complete the many 
missions that the American people have come to depend on. Our fiscal 
year 1999 Operating Expense request reflects the Coast Guard's 
priorities across four strategic goals--safety, protection of vital 
marine resources, maritime security, national defense and maritime 
mobility.
Safety
    We are known as lifesavers and guardians of the sea. Search and 
Rescue is, and always will be, our first priority. The Coast Guard's 
goal is to reduce deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with 
maritime transportation, fishing, and recreational boating. Through our 
marine safety program, we also prevent maritime accidents while 
remaining ready to react whenever disaster strikes. Each year, we 
respond to approximately 50,000 search and rescue calls--from 
recreational boaters in distress to freighters sinking in gale-force 
winds. The Coast Guard saves approximately 5,000 lives and 
approximately $2.5 billion dollars in property during search and rescue 
missions every year. In terms of the value of lives and property saved 
alone, we provide the American public with a benefit of approximately 
four times the cost of all Coast Guard services combined.
Protection of Marine Resources
    We strive to eliminate environmental damage and natural resource 
degradation on the high seas, within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic 
Zone (EEZ), and in our territorial seas. We protect the nation's 
immensely valuable fisheries resources from the dangers of overfishing 
and foreign poaching. Every day, the Coast Guard patrols the fishing 
grounds off New England, Alaska, the Gulf Coast, and throughout our 
EEZ. Preservation of these resources is and will remain a Coast Guard 
priority. Our fiscal year 1999 budget includes $488 million for 
protection of living marine resources. This is my largest law 
enforcement mission.
    We are also pioneers in the fight against pollution of our nation's 
waters. Since 1990, the average amount of oil spilled in the United 
States has dropped from 6.25 million gallons to 1.5 million gallons 
annually. However, we are not resting on our laurels. We are working 
with industry and maritime safety organizations in the U.S. and around 
the world to prevent environmental damage of all types. Our Prevention 
Through People program recognizes we can not simply focus on 
corporations and their leaders, we must also focus on the individual 
mariner--the human element. With this as our operating premise, we have 
been very aggressive in fostering increased prevention and response 
capabilities; conducting more enforcement; completing spill response 
contingency plans; and recovering costs from responsible parties. Our 
fiscal year 1999 budget request supports our goal of reducing 
environmental damage to U.S. waterways through these aggressive 
prevention, enforcement, and response programs.
Maritime Security
    The Coast Guard shields our nation by halting the flow of illegal 
drugs and aliens through maritime routes, as well as enforcing all 
Federal laws and regulations at sea. Our boarding teams interdict 
overcrowded boats carrying illegal immigrants into the United States, 
foil sophisticated attempts to smuggle drugs into our waters, enforce 
complex international fisheries agreements and domestic fisheries 
regulations, as well as enforce safety regulations on commercial and 
recreational vessels. In 1997, the Coast Guard seized a record 103,000 
pounds of cocaine and more than 102,000 pounds of marijuana and other 
illegal drugs being smuggled into the United States. Arrests of cocaine 
traffickers were up 1,000 percent, while cocaine seizures were triple 
the previous year. To strengthen our Caribbean neighbors' abilities to 
stop these problems before reaching our shores, the fiscal year 1999 
budget request includes $2.7 million to operate a Coast Guard cutter as 
a training and support ship for the President's Caribbean Initiative. 
This cutter will heighten our partnering efforts with our Caribbean 
neighbors and train their coast guards in interdicting drugs and 
protecting their economic zones. We have finalized bilateral maritime 
agreements with 18 nations in the Caribbean to enhance our ability to 
counter the drug threat and support U.S. security goals in this region.
National Defense
    As one of the five Armed Forces, the Coast Guard enhances regional 
stability in support of the National Security Strategy, using our 
unique maritime capabilities. We perform a range of defense duties for 
the Department of Defense, such as port security, search and rescue, 
salvage, surveillance and interdiction, and embargo enforcement. A 
Coast Guard cutter is currently patrolling the Persian Gulf, conducting 
maritime interception operations in support of the embargo against 
Iraq, and one of our Port Security Units stands ready for possible 
deployment in support of Operation Desert Thunder. The Coast Guard also 
works with foreign naval and maritime forces through training and joint 
operations, which improve international cooperation and support U.S. 
national security goals.
Mobility
    Nearly 95 percent of all U.S. trade involves maritime 
transportation. Developing a safe and efficient maritime transportation 
infrastructure is essential to the nation's economy and is key to our 
ability to compete successfully in the expanding global economy. The 
Coast Guard facilitates maritime commerce and eliminates impediments to 
the movement of goods and people. Like crowded highways, crowded 
waterways demand careful policing to ensure safe, equal access for all 
mariners. Coast Guard waterways management services promote the safe 
and efficient movement of commercial vessels in congested harbors. Our 
fleet of buoy tenders maintain some 50,000 Federal aids to navigation. 
We are also completing full implementation of the Differential Global 
Positioning System to provide mariners with the most accurate 
navigation information available. Our icebreakers keep shipping lanes 
open for commercial traffic in winter as well as conduct national 
interest missions in the Arctic and Antarctic. Our vessel traffic 
services help ensure safe and expeditious movement of vessels within 
the transportation network.
    Our strategic goals, and this budget request, support the 
Department of Transportation's strategic goals of safety, protection of 
the human and natural environment, mobility, economic growth and trade, 
and national security, as well as the President's national security 
goals.
                        investing in the future
    The Coast Guard today is not only concerned about maintaining our 
current level of services, but meeting America's future needs. Our 
fiscal year 1999 Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) 
request is structured to provide for the future. The ``Deepwater'' 
project is the cornerstone of the Coast Guard's future recapitalization 
efforts. This project represents the systematic replacement of aging 
Coast Guard cutters and aircraft and related command and control 
systems. This new system is essential to the Coast Guard and our 
nation.
    It is also important that we continue and complete current 
recapitalization projects such as the Seagoing and Coastal Buoy 
Tenders, the Coastal Patrol Boats, Motor Lifeboats, and Buoy Boats; 
continue safety and efficiency improvements on our aircraft; and invest 
in information and decision support systems that will result in future 
efficiencies. Full funding of our fiscal year 1999 request will allow 
us to do just that.
    To offset some of the Coast Guard's capital investment, user fees 
are proposed to recover a portion of the Coast Guard's costs for 
navigational services. We are working hard to develop this proposal. To 
maintain current services and provide for recapitalization of aging 
assets, I need the full program level of our fiscal year 1999 AC&I 
request.
            today's coast guard . . . streamlined, efficient
    Our efforts to streamline the Coast Guard during the past four 
years have been tough but successful. We have reduced our work force by 
nearly 4,000, we have reduced overhead, administrative, and support 
costs, and have placed resources in the right place at the right time. 
Today, the Coast Guard is more active and affects more American lives 
on a daily basis than at any time in its 208-year history.
    I can say with confidence that our Service is on course and more 
responsive than ever to both enduring and emerging national priorities. 
It is only because of our most valuable resource--our people--that we 
have been able to undertake such significant change while continuing to 
deliver the highest level of quality and excellence in services to the 
public. I need your support for our fiscal year 1999 request to restore 
the funding to our personnel account in order to recruit, retain, and 
pay the skilled work force necessary to perform the Coast Guard's 
missions.
                               conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for 
the Coast Guard allows the Coast Guard to carry out its missions. I 
believe this request is responsive to the challenges we face, yet 
recognizes the fiscal challenges we face as a nation. Your strong 
support of this request is critical to ensuring the Coast Guard remains 
Semper Paratus--Always Ready.

               Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill

    Senator Shelby. Administrator Garvey, the emergency 
supplemental appropriation bill that was marked up earlier this 
week includes a significant appropriation for the year 2000 
related work. I know that both you and the Secretary have 
indicated that you are confident that the year 2000 
deficiencies will be corrected by July 1, 1999, or earlier.
    Given the FAA's inability in the past to manage software 
programs on schedule, I am not willing to take a chance on it 
when the stakes may be as high as a complete shutdown of the 
ATC system on September 9, 1999, or on January 1, 2000.
    Will the supplemental appropriation included in the 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill provide you the 
necessary resources to solve the host computer and year 2000 
deficiencies?
    Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, the supplemental would be 
extraordinarily helpful in allowing us to keep on schedule. It 
would also allow us to aggressively replace the host equipment.
    Senator Shelby. Will it be sufficient? Will it be enough?
    Ms. Garvey. It will be, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for asking 
that question.

                Coast Guard Facilities at Dauphin Island

    Senator Shelby. Admiral, this is parochial, I guess, but 
not totally so.
    There is a small Coast Guard station in Mobile, AL. I 
understand that there was an anticipated relocation and 
construction of new facilities for that station on some Coast 
Guard owned property situated on Dauphin Island for a search 
and rescue detachment.
    Resources for that relocation and construction were not put 
in the President's budget request. I further understand that 
one of the benefits of combining facilities at Dauphin Island 
is a reduction in operating and maintenance costs. In other 
words, it would be cost effective.
    Is my understanding of this issue accurate? Was that money 
in your request to the Office of the Secretary and in the 
Department's request to the Office of Management and Budget?
    Admiral Kramek. Yes, sir, it was.
    Senator Shelby. Is that approximately $3.25 million?
    Admiral Kramek. It was about that amount, a little bit over 
$3 million.
    Senator Shelby. So if we get you the money, that would be 
OK, wouldn't it?
    Admiral Kramek. We could start construction.
    I had to defer that project because of our budget caps, but 
we are ready to move on that, which moves the rescue forces 2 
hours closer to where the work is.
    Senator Shelby. It makes sense, does it not?
    Admiral Kramek. Yes.
    Senator Shelby. So if we get you the money, you will 
proceed immediately, won't you?
    Admiral Kramek. We will.

        Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System [STARS]

    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Administrator Garvey, although the STARS Program has been 
the subject of a number of reprogramming concerns over key and 
slight slippages in the software development schedule, the 
reports I am getting and the committee is getting on the STARS 
Program are that this very aggressive hardware and software 
program is progressing well.
    Do you share that assessment?
    Ms. Garvey. We do, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Is the budget request for the 1999 year 
sufficient to meet your obligations for this program and to 
manage the program in the manner you would expect from the FAA?
    Ms. Garvey. It is at this point. I will say that the next 3 
weeks are going to be very critical for us with the Standard 
Terminal Automation Replacement System [STARS]. We are working 
closely with the controllers and with members of the 
Professional Airway System Specialists [PASS] Union, our 
maintenance union, to take a look at some of the human factor 
issues. In the next 2 or 3 weeks, we are going to understand 
even more clearly what those human factor impacts will be.
    We are all working very hard on the issue and the 
controllers are working side by side with us as well as the 
members of PASS.

                  Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS]

    Senator Shelby. Let me get your impression on the status of 
the WAAS procurement.
    In your testimony before the House Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee, you suggested that for large 
procurements, it might be useful to identify a cost range with 
risk factors that would either increase or decrease the final 
cost of the procurement.
    Given the cost escalation that we have seen in the 
estimated costs of the WAAS system just in the last year and 
the critical question of whether this is a sole or a primary 
system and my growing concerns that this procurement is not 
even close to being cost effective, is this a candidate for the 
type of range and risk analysis that you suggested at the House 
hearing?
    Ms. Garvey. It is, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the General 
Accounting Office [GAO] made the suggestion to us. We are 
working closely with them on ways that we might approach it. We 
are approaching the Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] in 
that way right now.
    Senator Shelby. I understand how a range and risk analysis 
might be useful at program inception. But I worry about the 
slippery slope of a rolling range and risk estimate that could 
lead Congress to throw good money after bad. I am sure you 
share that. We don't have to look very far to see the dangers 
of throwing good money after bad.
    The inspector general report on AAS that we mandated last 
year is likely to show that we wasted over $1.5 billion. I 
would rather cut WAAS now and get the program's architecture 
and management straightened out before we move forward than 
have an AAS situation occur on our watch.
    Do you share that view?
    Ms. Garvey. We do, Mr. Chairman. We are going to be working 
on that very closely in the next several months. The issue of 
WAAS providing primary means of navigation versus sole means 
capability and the other questions that are associated with 
WAAS are at the top of our agenda.
    Senator Shelby. It is a lot of money, isn't it?
    Ms. Garvey. It is a lot of money, Mr. Chairman.

                           Deepwater Project

    Senator Shelby. Admiral, there is $28 million in the AC&I 
budget for the deepwater project. Last year, we appropriated 
more than was requested for the AC&I budget in an effort to 
reduce the demands on that account as the deepwater project 
elements became bigger factors in the AC&I account.
    What will be done with that $28 million in fiscal year 
1999?
    Admiral Kramek. Mr. Chairman, this week we issued a request 
for proposals to various contractors. We have a tremendous 
amount of interests from all the major shipyard contractors in 
the United States--major and minor--and from the aviation 
industry and the electronics industry for this system.
    In the next 3 or 4 months, these different consortiums that 
have formed--there are five or six of them, or so--will answer 
our proposals. This summer we will select at least three of 
these consortiums which then will be paid from this $28 million 
to go into an 18-month design competition.
    At the end of that, they will propose to us what the 
deepwater system should be like--the types of ships, aircraft, 
and the C\4\I systems.
    The phase II part of that project, which is also covered by 
this $28 million, is perhaps all three of them or perhaps just 
one winner, as we down select, will then go into a detailed 
design and cost analysis. Then we will select a winner from 
that to proceed to construct the deepwater project.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Admiral.
    Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we, 
unfortunately, have two very important witnesses here and, as a 
consequence, I have questions that I would like to try to get 
in. I hope our colleagues will perhaps indulge me if I run over 
a minute or two. We will try to wrap it up quickly.
    Admiral Kramek, you have noted that your proposal for a 33-
percent funding cut for a container inspection program in 
fiscal 1999 will not result in a reduced level of effectiveness 
and will not compromise the safety of our ports and waterways.
    As you know, I initiated this program in 1994, in response 
to the Santa Clara I casualty in which several containers 
filled with toxic materials were lost overboard off the New 
Jersey coast.
    Despite assurances, I am concerned that this reduction has 
the potential to substantially limit both the number and 
quality of container inspections the Coast Guard can perform. 
It is of particular concern because of, as you noted, the 
substantial increase in the number and size of the ships that 
are going to be plying our waters.
    If you come to New Jersey, you will see it. You know that 
container movement is growing in popularity all the time. The 
size of these things is amazing. Did you mention a vessel with 
8,000 containers aboard? Is that correct?
    Admiral Kramek. That's correct. They have 6,000 already.
    Senator Lautenberg. It is almost beyond comprehension.
    What assurances can we have here at the subcommittee that 
these cuts, the cuts that you are proposing, will not impair 
the program and result in an increased exposure to problems in 
our ports and waterways?
    Admiral Kramek. The assurances are that the goal that I set 
was to maintain our service to the public, taking into account 
the increase in trade. As you know, when we established this 
program, you were very generous and very concerned when we set 
this program up several years ago. We did it without any real 
experience in having started it.
    Now that we have 3 years of experience in this program, I 
am able to reduce the headquarters staff. I don't find that 
that is necessary anymore for oversight of the program. I am 
going to maintain all my inspectors in the ports where they 
should be. I have increased the number of containers that I 
have inspected each year and forecast to do that in the future. 
And I have learned, in a quality way, how to do this job 
better.
    If, for a moment, we fall behind, I will ask to have some 
of these resources restored. But I have taken all of the 
savings--33 percent--from what I consider expenses in excess of 
overhead costs. I think we can do the same job and the process 
we have to do with less money.
    Senator Lautenberg. Don't be afraid, Admiral Kramek or 
Admiral Loy, to send out an SOS when needed because we 
continually give your service more and more tasks, and life 
becomes ever more complicated. The ships that are being built 
show an amazing growth in interest, whether it is passenger, 
container, or otherwise. I have seen a proposal where they are 
looking for investments in condominiums aboard ship so that you 
can own it and use it or rent it out on a kind of casual basis.
    There is one ship that is being proposed to have two 
towers--perhaps you have seen that--where some gaming might 
take place off the coast, with thousands of passengers 
boarding, and perhaps going broke in the process. But the fact 
of the matter is the Coast Guard's responsibility is 
considerably enlarged.
    I noted in your statement the successes we have had in 
capturing those attempting to run drugs into our country. Also, 
there is the number of buoys that have to be tended to.
    I am an amateur sailor by everybody's standard and I need 
every one of those buoys out there. That is how I spend all of 
my time, looking for the next mark. And I have GPS, radar, and 
you name it, and my vision is pretty good. [Laughter.]
    That is how we built this incredible marine recreation 
industry and commercial industry in our society. It is because 
the Coast Guard was there to make sure the waterways were clear 
and understood and to make the preparations for tomorrow.
    When I get reports for deeper drafts--not your direct 
responsibility--for vessels that are expected in the future, I 
don't know how we are going to get them in and out of these 
fairly narrow waterways that we use so effectively. But we are 
going to do it.
    The Senator from Utah can take some comfort in that he does 
not have to worry about that. His problems are on the high and 
ours are on the sea. He has the mountains and we have the sea 
to worry about.
    But you do a terrific job.
    If I can, Mr. Chairman, I would like to get on with a 
couple of questions.
    Senator Shelby. Go ahead.

                            Oceanic Systems

    Senator Lautenberg. Ambassador Garvey--I mean 
Administrator. Boy, I am changing titles all day.
    Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. You know, that might come down the road.
    Senator Lautenberg. I called Senator Byrd ``Admiral.'' I'm 
having a bad day. It's these late nights in the Budget 
Committee.
    Administrator Garvey, you recently submitted a 
reprogramming request for $75 million to replace 3 IBM 1970's 
vintage air traffic control computer systems. They are used for 
primary and oceanic systems, offshore flight data processing 
systems. You describe it as an imperative.
    We, in my region, the New York/New Jersey region, know all 
too well the problems FAA's aging infrastructure imposes on the 
air traffic controllers, the carriers, the airline passengers. 
It is tough out there.
    Now it is apparent that you have been facing this problem 
for some time now. Why has it suddenly become a critical issue 
and how many more aging computer systems are there out there 
awaiting attention?
    Ms. Garvey. Senator, replacing the Host System is 
something, as you have indicated, that we have known about. 
Originally, the FAA was looking at the year 2002 or 2003 to 
replace the Host. But with the Y2K issue, we took another look 
at that last fall and said should we perhaps undertake a much 
more aggressive schedule. That is really the result of the 
reprogramming.
    Ken Mead likes to describe it as a ``belt-and-suspenders 
approach'' that we are taking, which is trying aggressively to 
replace the Host at the same time that we are renovating the 
existing system. In case we just cannot get the Host into every 
one of the terminals, we want to have a backup as well.
    So, while we have always planned to replace the Host, we 
have moved it forward in a more aggressive timetable. That is 
the result of the reprogramming.
    Senator Lautenberg. I am sure that the Senator from Utah, 
with his, as he describes it, obsession about Y2K matters, is 
going to ask some questions there. I just want to register the 
fact that I am concerned about the passage of the supplemental 
to get you the funds that we need.
    I say the same to you. Do not be ashamed or reluctant to 
describe your needs in the most effective terms necessary 
because this is a critical issue. Again, I will defer to the 
Senator, who has spent so much time on this and has so much 
knowledge about it.
    I would put in a plug for my old company and say ADP has 
solved the year 2000 problem. But I would not do that in this 
austere position that I now hold. [Laughter.]

                             Controller Pay

    The question of controller pay and the regional differences 
are enormous. I am concerned that you have not requested any 
funding for controller pay increases in your 1999 budget.
    Should we expect a request for a supplemental appropriation 
at the conclusion of the current negotiations with the Air 
Traffic Controllers Association?
    Ms. Garvey. Senator, as you have indicated, we are in 
negotiations right now with the union, which, by the way, I 
think are going very well. People are working very hard at it.
    In talking with them last week, they had gone through about 
50 articles, which was very good progress.
    We have not requested additional funds for pay. We are 
looking at it as budget neutral and looking at offsets within 
the bargaining unit. But we really have all ideas on the table, 
and the controllers have brought forward some interesting ideas 
on productivity and savings that could be gained in other 
areas.
    So we are really looking hard at that.
    I hope very much that we can conclude the negotiations 
fairly quickly. I know that some of the more contentious issues 
are still on the table. But we are making good progress.

                             Airport Delays

    Senator Lautenberg. The delays in our area with the number 
of busy airports, including even general aviation, with 
Teterboro and Morristown airports nearby, or Westchester--these 
are peripheral airports in the scheme of things--are notable. 
La Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy airports are suffering, as are 
their passengers, from the number of air traffic delays, 
especially under severe weather conditions.
    I can tell you, as a frequent flyer to that area from here, 
even when the weather is crystal clear, when the weather is 
perfect, the delays are there. At times we spend more time 
circling to get a landing slot than we do in actual transit 
from Washington to there.
    What can we do? What are you planning to do to reduce these 
delays and improve the safety?
    We have had a few of what I might describe as close calls. 
I do want to amend that for one system to say the system is 
safe. What we want to do is make it even safer than it has 
been. The statistics do not please us when there are persons 
involved if there is an accident.
    What can we do to reduce delays and improve safety.
    Mr. Chairman, that will be my last question.
    Ms. Garvey. Senator, let me answer that in three ways. I 
will do this very briefly.
    There are really three efforts underway. One is the 
modernization effort. The work the task force, the work that 
RTCA has done in laying out some of the automation tools that 
we can put in place fairly quickly, before 2005, is noteworthy. 
The White House Commission talks about the year 2005. But 
incremental building blocks can be put in place now. We can 
deal both with safety issues and efficiency issues, as you have 
suggested. That is one effort, modernization.
    Second, there is the whole issue of reconfiguring the 
national airspace. A point that you have made to me, and that 
your staff has made as well, is that when you take on something 
like reconfiguring the national airspace, that is a big 
proposition, an enormous proposition. We, in the last few 
weeks, have been looking at taking the Northeast corridor, 
where some of the problems, as you have suggested, are the most 
significant; rather than taking on the whole thing, let's at 
least look at that piece of it first so that we can take on 
those challenges and not wait for the whole national airspace 
to be reconfigured.
    We are doing that and are working very closely with the 
airports in the corridor, including Newark.
    The third is more immediate. In talking during a visit I 
had a couple of months ago in Newark with both the airport and 
Continental people, they made some wonderful suggestions about 
operational improvements that we could make now that will have 
a direct effect on efficiency and delays.
    We are doing that. We have a task force made up of 
representatives of the airport, FAA, as well as the airlines. 
We are putting it in place and looking at the operational 
improvements now.
    So those three efforts--operational improvements, which are 
quite immediate, modernization, and the reconfiguration of the 
air traffic control, which is a couple of years away but still 
in the short term will give us some good answers to deal with 
the issues that you have raised.
    We are looking forward to a visit in April, I understand, 
to do that.
    Senator Lautenberg. Yes, indeed.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Administrator Garvey 
points out something and that is that we have to have balance 
in our transportation system. I have heard echoes of support 
here for rail service.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
    Senator Lautenberg. If we did not have it between New York, 
Boston, and Washington, if we did not have Amtrak serving those 
areas, we would need 10,000 new flights a year. There is no 
room.
    People looking up at the sky do not see it, but they see it 
when they get to the airport and they have to wait an hour for 
their flight, or they arrive too late for their connection.
    I hope that we will continue to invest in rail service so 
that we can reduce the need to continually expand air service 
when, in fact, air service can be improved by redirecting some 
of the routes, instead of some of these short legs that we 
have.
    Thanks very much, and I thank my colleagues for indulging 
me.

                      Airport Improvement Program

    Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you.
    Have you given any thought to closing Newark? [Laughter.]
    Ms. Garvey. None at all, Senator.
    Senator Lautenberg. And we have not thought about taking 
our old operations out of North Carolina, either, my old 
company. [Laughter.]
    Senator Shelby. I'll tell you what. I know that Senator 
Lautenberg has been a big sponsor, advocate of rail 
transportation, mainly in the Northeast, where he is from and 
where a lot of it works. But some of us in the South are 
concerned about rail transportation. There is not enough there. 
There is not enough coming through my hometown or through 
Senator Lott's State. That is something we are going to have to 
address and Senator Lautenberg knows that well.
    Senator Lautenberg. We will look at the Shelby express, I 
promise you.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely--the Lautenberg-Shelby express. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Faircloth.

                     Air Traffic Control Equipment

    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Garvey, I just want to run through a few things. I am 
not even asking questions on these first four. I just want to 
mention and thank you for these. If you or some of your staff 
would take note to make sure they are on line, and, if you 
don't mind, if you would, let someone get back to me on the 
projects I am going to mention.
    Ms. Garvey. Certainly, Senator.
    Senator Faircloth. First is the Global Transpark and the 
Sanford-Lee County Airport and the funding for this so that we 
can get the schedule on line. Second is the Lexington Airport 
and the Moore County Airport.
    If you would, have someone contact me and let me talk to 
them on these projects and where they stand. Also, this one is 
very important because, if I am not mistaken, maybe you are 
planning to be there. The Charlotte air traffic control tower 
will receive the rapid deployment voice switching system in 
July of this year. I would very, very much want to make sure 
that that is on schedule and moving as it should be.
    To be very brief, I understand exactly what Senator Byrd 
was saying earlier. Certainly 110 people a day killed on 
highways is a condition we cannot allow to continue. But I 
still go back to the helplessness we feel when any of us in 
this room gets into an airline. We have no control.
    I have been through automobile wrecks and I have been 
through airplane crashes. I can tell you that the airplane 
crash is much more frightening.
    I still look back--and I am not trying to identify some 
individual whom we can label a scapegoat--but the fiasco that 
the FAA allowed to go on and on and on in the purchasing of new 
control tower control equipment for the entire aviation network 
in this Nation is just a travesty that I hope we are correcting 
rapidly and that is not allowed to continue. The waste of money 
was bad enough. But the waste of time, as time moved on and we 
became more obsolete and more obsolete, was terrible because 
lives are at stake.
    Would you tell me, are we catching up? Are we doing just 
fill-in, make-believe catchup? Are we expending the system for 
more air traffic? Or are we just kind of running down to Radio 
Shack and getting something to replace a 1974 computer with?
    Ms. Garvey. Senator, thank you.
    I think we have made some real improvements. I thought your 
comments in the opening statement zeroed in on some of the 
problems we have had in the past. That is sometimes the 
interest in getting an enormous project that may be just too 
big. Sometimes Government does that. We focus on long-term 
implementation of a project that sometimes may be very 
difficult to achieve.
    I think that is why the work that RTCA and the task force 
has done has been so important, because they have really said 
let's look at some building blocks, let's look at something we 
can put in place now. And that is going to give us and will 
give us the kind of automation tools that we really need to 
deal with the issues that you and other members have raised.
    I think some of the reform that Congress gave the FAA, the 
acquisition reform, for example, has been extraordinarily 
helpful.
    One thing that is very different in the way that we monitor 
contracts now and that is really significant is this. There are 
ways that the contracts are set up so that we can catch any 
problems early-on in the process, rather than hearing about 
them from contractors. We have been able to monitor projects in 
a way and have caught some things, for example, in the WAAS 
contract, also in the STARS contract, that we might not have 
caught 5 or 6 years ago. So I think Congress has been 
extraordinarily helpful in giving us some of the reforms.
    But I think the issue is an important one, and one we have 
to constantly look at. Are we putting the right pieces of 
equipment in place? Are we thinking both what can we get in the 
short-term for benefits and what also will lead to something 
that will serve the next century as well? I think we are making 
some good progress.

                       Air Traffic Modernization

    Senator Faircloth. Just very briefly--am I running out of 
time?
    Senator Shelby. You go on ahead, Senator Faircloth.
    Senator Faircloth. Just in a word, are we trying to cover 
the mistakes of the past or are we expanding for the future? 
Are we getting ready for more air traffic?
    Ms. Garvey. Senator, I believe we are preparing for the 
future. We are ready for the future--we will be.

                    Federal Express Mid-Atlantic Hub

    Senator Faircloth. Ms. Garvey, we, in North Carolina, are 
excited about the possibility that Federal Express is looking 
at the possibility of locating their Mid-Atlantic hub there.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth, could you get them to 
share that with Alabama, too? [Laughter.]
    Senator Faircloth. There is no room in Alabama. [Laughter.]
    If this happens, we will need some support and financing 
from FAA of a considerable amount, depending on which airport 
it goes to. I just want to say that we will be back.
    Ms. Garvey. We will look forward to that, Senator, and we 
will be happy to work with you.

                       Drug Interdiction Funding

    Senator Faircloth. Thank you.
    Admiral Kramek, does the budget request permit the Coast 
Guard to accomplish the drug interdiction objectives that you 
have? I want you to know that I think it is one of the most 
dangerous things facing the country and if your current budget 
request does not do it, I can assure you that you will have my 
support and probably that of a lot of other Senators for more.
    Does it give you an adequate amount of money?
    Admiral Kramek. This budget request allows us to maintain 
the same level of drug law enforcement that we maintained last 
year--at the same level as last year.
    Senator Faircloth. Should it be expanded?
    Admiral Kramek. Well, I think if one were to follow the 
National Drug Control Strategy that has been laid out to reduce 
supplies in this country by 50 percent over the next 10 years, 
that would beg for a program with some growth. So we are 
studying that. We are going to have to, in the future, ask for 
more resources in order to meet the requirements of that 
strategy.
    But this year we had a bit of a dilemma, and the dilemma 
was the Congress and the administration agreeing on balancing 
the budget. We had budget caps to live within. And so, this 
budget allows me just to maintain the current services we had 
at last year's level.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Admiral.
    Just out of total curiosity, why would anybody want to be 
on a ship with 40,000 other people?
    Admiral Kramek. I have no idea. [Laughter.]
    When Senator Lautenberg mentioned the ship with the 
condominiums, every condo is already sold on that vessel. Those 
people live on it. They say they travel around the world and 
follow the sun. That is where they live, and it is totally sold 
out.
    Senator Faircloth. I will stick to North Carolina.
    Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.

                   Management Responsibility for Y2K

    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Garvey, I appreciate your comments about the year 2000 
problem. I will not beat a dead horse.
    Now that is the wrong analogy. This horse is not dead. This 
is a horse that is going to kick down the barn if we don't get 
something under control.
    But I would simply share with you my own experience. The 
agencies over which I have a degree of responsibility and 
control all gave me the same answers when I raised the year 
2000 problem. The immediate was yes, we have a plan in place 
and yes, we will be ready.
    As I have pursued it, I have found that in almost every 
case, the answer is no. They cannot be ready and the plan they 
have is more wishful thinking than anything else.
    I am delighted to hear your description of the meeting that 
just took place. It should have taken place based on where we 
are--you were not there, so you do not bear any of the 
responsibility--well over a year ago, and probably for an 
agency as big as yours 2 or 3 years ago.
    I am scared to death to find out that this meeting took 
place a month or so ago to start pulling this together. I will 
be working with you in whatever capacity the leader gives me on 
this issue to give you as much support as we possibly can get 
out of Congress.
    Do not believe the techies who tell you immediately oh, 
yes, we have this problem under control. This is a management 
problem. The responsibility is yours. The responsibility is 
Secretary Slater's. It is not something you turn over to your 
Chief Information Officer and then turn your attention to other 
issues. It is something you, yourself, must be on top of 
virtually on a daily basis.
    If I can put it in this analogy, your Chief Information 
Officer is General Marshall. You are President Roosevelt, and 
the free world is at stake here on how well you do your job.
    If that is enough to scare you, I have accomplished what I 
want to accomplish.
    Ms. Garvey. You have succeeded, Senator. [Laughter.]

          Second Airport Surveillance Radar for Salt Lake City

    Senator Bennett. Good.
    Let me be parochial now. Everybody else has been and it is 
time for me to be parochial, too.
    With respect to an ASR-9 system in Utah Valley, which is 
just south of Salt Lake Valley, we have a letter from you 
saying that it does not meet the cost benefit analysis.
    My question, which you can answer for the record, is 
whether or not your analysis focused primarily on the Provo 
Municipal Airport because the real problem, frankly, is not 
Provo. The problem is Salt Lake International Airport.
    Of all of the major hubs in the United States, Salt Lake 
International Airport is the most physically constrained; 
10,000- to 12,000-foot peaks virtually surround the airport.
    It is the Salt Lake radar problem that we are worried 
about, not the Provo radar problem.
    Now the mayor of Provo was in to see me yesterday and he 
has big plans for the Provo Airport. But there is a 
circumstance now where coming from the south, airplanes 
literally go off radar.
    A week or so ago, when the President came to Salt Lake to 
accompany his daughter when she went skiing, Air Force One went 
off radar for 26 seconds. There was considerable panic over 
that. Regular airliners can go off radar for minutes.
    We are concerned about that and hope you will take a second 
look at it.
    Your letter tells us that there is going to be additional 
radar coverage during the Olympic games, so that during the 
Olympic games, temporary facilities will be put there to take 
care of this and nobody will go off radar coming from the south 
during the Olympics.
    Obviously, the question gets raised: If it is good enough 
for the Olympics, why is it not good enough for regular 
traffic? While we will have additional traffic during the 
Olympics, Salt Lake is a major hub. Delta operates a tremendous 
number of flights out of there, as they do with their other 
hubs in Cincinnati and Atlanta. This is one we hope you take a 
careful look at.
    We are a little bit afraid that the analysis that was done 
was just on Provo, saying well, the additional radar is not 
necessary for Provo which is 45 miles, roughly, south of Salt 
Lake. Given the maneuvers that airliners have to go through to 
get around the mountains, get into the landing pattern, and get 
into Salt Lake, this is a Salt Lake problem, not a Provo 
problem.
    I would appreciate it if you would look into that and get 
back to me on it.
    Ms. Garvey. We will do that, Senator.
    I remember very well last year, even before I was sworn in, 
you urged me to visit the airport and see the uniqueness of the 
layout. I did. So I do have some appreciation for the issues 
that you have raised.
    Let me go back and take another look at that.
    [The information follows:]

    Currently, there is not a validated operational need to 
install a second airport surveillance radar (ASR) for Salt Lake 
City International Airport. This airport experiences a delay 
rate below national average. Most of the delays that do occur 
would not have been prevented with improved terminal radar 
coverage. High altitude aircraft inbound from the south are 
controlled by the Salt Lake City Air Route Traffic Control 
Center (ARTCC) and remain within the ARTCC's radar coverage 
until established in the radar coverage and airspace of the 
Salt Lake City Radar Approach Control (TRACON). Positive radar 
contact and control is always maintained throughout the 
aircraft descent by either the ARTCC or TRACON. The FAA will 
continue to ensure the safe and efficient flow of traffic at 
Salt Lake City International Airport.
    The proposed need for a second ASR in the Salt Lake City 
area is a separate issue from the short term temporary radar 
surveillance need for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Provo Airport 
has been identified as a potential relieve airport during the 
Winter Olympics. The temporary ASR-9 is intended to provide 
radar coverage into and around Provo Airport during the 
increased traffic period the Olympics Games will generate.
    The radar coverage issue involving Air Force One, occurred 
on Tuesday, March 10, 1998 at 8:34 a.m. EST. Air Force One was 
enroute from Andrews Air Force Base, MD to Windsor Locks, CT. 
Although the beacon radar data provided by the Gibbsboro air 
route surveillance radar was interrupted partially, basic radar 
data was provided continuously.

    Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 
consideration.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy.

                         Coast Guard Recruiting

    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    I have just one final question for Admiral Kramek.
    I know that the current low unemployment rate, while good 
for the Nation, creates some difficulty for the Coast Guard in 
your recruiting efforts. Does the current budget provide the 
resources to maintain your end strength numbers considering the 
difficulty of recruiting in a low unemployment economy?
    Admiral Kramek. Yes; this 1999 request from the President 
asks for sufficient funds to do just that.
    We have to contact approximately 120 qualified high school 
graduates to get one of them to join the Armed Forces nowadays. 
It is about the same for all the services, though a little 
better for the Coast Guard. But sufficient funds are requested 
in this budget to do that, Mr. Chairman.

                          Submitted Questions

    Senator Shelby. We appreciate both of you appearing here, 
your patience, and your hard work. We will submit additional 
questions in writing to be answered for the record.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
                    Federal Aviation Administration
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
                             controller pay
    Question. The budget request does not request any funding for any 
cost increase due to a new contract with the air traffic controllers. 
Your agency is currently in discussions with the air traffic 
controllers with regard to the terms and conditions of such a new 
contract. Do you anticipate a new contract this year, and will the 
Administration submit a budget amendment to pay for any increased costs 
due to such a contract?
    Answer. While the negotiation process is progressing well, whether 
it will be concluded this year is unknown. If any cost increases result 
from the contract, we will pursue funding them through cost savings 
offsets. It is the agency's intention that the new contract will be 
budget neutral.
                       lighter than air vehicles
    Question. Last year's Transportation Appropriations conference 
report contained language directing the FAA to examine the feasibility 
of exempting hot air balloons from the minimum safe altitude 
requirements of 14 CFR 91.119. The FAA currently exempts helicopters 
from this requirement and often exempts hot air balloons from the 
requirements during balloon rallies. What steps has the FAA taken to 
examine the feasibility of a permanent exemption for Lighter Than Air 
vehicles from the requirements of this FAA rule? Can you assure the 
Committee that the FAA will undertake a thorough study to determine 
whether such an exemption would be feasible, and report back to 
Congress as soon as possible?
    Answer. In recognition of the increasing popularity of hot air 
ballooning as a sport aviation function, the Federal Aviation 
Administration has, from time to time, provided guidance to field 
elements regarding the operation of these lighter-than-air (LTV) 
vehicles with regard to minimum operational altitudes in accordance 
with the provisions of 14 CFR part 91.119, Minimum Safe Altitudes.
    The regulation provides for the establishment of a minimum safe 
altitude for all aircraft. By regulation, aircraft must operate at an 
altitude that permits an emergency landing, in the event of a power 
unit failure, without undue hazard to persons or property on the 
surface.
    Minimum safe operating altitudes and distances are addressed for 
operations conducted over ``congested areas,'' ``other than congested 
areas,'' and ``sparsely populated areas''. The rule establishes an 
exception for helicopters, in recognition of their distinct operational 
characteristics which permit them to operate vertically and 
horizontally (including side and rearward operations) with equanimity. 
No other type of aircraft can safely duplicate these operational 
characteristics.
    As maneuverability and controllability of an aircraft type 
decreases, safety considerations become more significant. Where the FAA 
may permit a small single-engine, power line patrol airplane to operate 
under the conditions of a waiver to the minimum altitude rule over 
other than congested areas (e.g. no less than 200 feet from persons or 
property), it would not authorize the same operation by a large multi-
engine transport airplane.
    Minimum safe operating altitude and distance waivers are generally 
granted upon request for those operators participating in airshows or 
competitive events. Such waivers are issued under strict terms and 
conditions involving pre-determined pilot actions and crowd control to 
preclude injury to persons or damage to property on the surface. During 
these events, FAA personnel are on hand to monitor the safety aspects 
of the event, and to terminate events or activities if conditions 
warrant it.
    Balloons appear to be graceful and slow-moving, however, the amount 
of control an operator has over a lighter-than-air aircraft is minimal, 
and the aircraft is immediately subject to any variation in the 
atmosphere, such as gusty winds or thermal activity. An immediate 
correction to an in-flight abnormality of a hot air balloon only 
results in a response over a relatively long period of time.
    At this time, the Federal Aviation Administration has no plans to 
initiate rulemaking to provide an exception to the minimum safe 
operating rules (14 CFR part 91.119) for lighter-than-air aircraft. The 
absence of total effective control of such aircraft would not provide 
for an equivalent level of safety that the general public has come to 
expect.
    Should an operator or an organization request an exemption to the 
current rule, the Agency will examine the merits of the request on a 
case by case basis to determine the feasibility of granting such an 
exemption.
     faa reprogramming request for replacement of computer systems
    Question. The FAA recently submitted a reprogramming request for 
$75.3 million to replace three IBM 1970's vintage air traffic control 
computer systems--the primary and oceanic air traffic control systems, 
and the off-shore flight data processing system. The FAA has also 
disclosed that these critical systems need to be replaced immediately 
because they are no longer supported by IBM.
    Why was this problem not identified earlier and how many more of 
these air traffic control computer systems are on the verge of 
obsolescence?
    Answer. The Host Computer System (HCS) was originally identified 
for replacement by the Advanced Automation System (AAS), which was 
canceled in 1994. Only the Peripheral Adapter Module Replacement Item 
(PAMRI) segment of AAS was successfully deployed and commissioned. We 
have continued work on the HCS and critical system replacement 
programs.
    The Host and Oceanic reprogramming request was sent to the 
Appropriations Subcommittees on March 6, 1998. This reprogramming would 
allow FAA to accelerate the replacement of Host and oceanic systems. 
This request came about after Lockheed Martin (LM) informed the FAA 
level in a report dated July 23, 1997, that it could not provide the 
current maintenance. LM is the prime contractor for the HCS with IBM 
being the hardware maintenance supplier. In this report, IBM stated 
that it could only provide the current maintenance level for one year 
ending 09/98 and ``best effort'' thereafter. End-of-Service issues for 
various components were also identified in this report.
    Upon receipt of this information, the FAA analyzed the risks and 
alternatives for the HCS replacement. During this time, the FAA also 
vigorously pursued the HCS mainframe Year 2000 compliance issue with 
IBM but IBM declined to certify the system as Y2K compliant. Thirteen 
alternatives for the HCS replacement were studied in an Investment 
Analysis in February 1998. The reprogramming request was submitted.
    Other systems that are either obsolete or on the verge of 
obsolescence include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Current system                 Replaced by or decommission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS)      Standard Terminal Automation
 IIIA, IIIE; ARTS IIA, IIE.                  Replacement System (STARS).
En Route Automated Radar Tracking System    Micro-EARTS.
 (EARTS).
Common Digitizer (CD)-1...................  CD-2.
Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR)-1, 2..  Being decommissioned and
                                             replaced selectively with
                                             ARSR-3, 4.
Direct Access Radar Channel (DARC)........  Supportable till 2001;
                                             Investment Analysis is
                                             examining alternatives for
                                             a replacement system.
Peripheral Adapter Module (PAM)...........  Supportable till 2001.
Replacement Item (PAMRI)..................   Investment Analysis is to
                                             be determined.
Flight Service Automation System (FSAS)...  Logistically not supportable
                                             by year 2000 and is being
                                             replaced under the OASIS
                                             program.
Tandem portion Voice Switching and Control  Replacement planned.
 System  (VSCS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       nas modernization approach
    Question. The FAA Administrator has begun an outreach effort with 
the aviation community to build consensus on and seek commitment to the 
future direction of the agency's NAS modernization program. A review of 
this program by the NAS Modernization Task Force (which includes FAA 
and DOD officials and representatives of external stakeholder groups) 
concluded last month that the architecture under development builds on 
the concept of operations for the NAS and identifies the programs 
needed to meet the needs of the user community. However, the task force 
found that the architecture is not realistic because of (1) an 
insufficient budget; (2) the preponderance of risks associated 
primarily with certifying and deploying new equipment and with users' 
cost to acquire equipment; and (3) unresolved institutional issues and 
a lack of user commitment.
    The task force recommended a revised approach that would be less 
costly and would be focused more on providing near-term user benefits. 
Under this revised approach, FAA would (1) implement a set of core 
technologies to provide immediate user benefits; (2) modify the Flight 
2000 initiative to address critical risk areas associated with key 
communication, navigation, and surveillance programs, and (3) proceed 
with implementing critical time-driven activities related to the Host 
computer and the year 2000 computer date problems and with implementing 
such systems as STARS, surveillance radars, and en route displays to 
replace aging infrastructure. What are the costs for implementing the 
revised approach, including the Flight 2000 Initiative? What are the 
benefits?
    Answer. The Administrator's Modernization Task Force provided 
guidance to the FAA for establishing priorities for and reducing risks 
in modernization. The Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1) initiative represents 
aviation community consensus on the first phase of modernization. It 
will cost approximately $600 million for the core program out of a 
total modernization program of $11.9 billion in Facilities and 
Equipment (F&E) for fiscal years 1998-2002. Flight 2000 will cost 
approximately $400 million in Research, Engineering and Development 
(R,E&D) for fiscal years 1999-2003. The re-worked National Airspace 
System (NAS) Architecture is consistent with budget planning targets 
and incorporates the recommendations of the Task Force. The key 
differences from the Version 3.0 draft architecture is the changed 
priorities and ensuring that the pace of modernization is supported by 
proposed funding levels. This approach affects when certain 
capabilities will be operational. This will influence both the initial 
operational capability date, and the deployment rate for some systems 
consistent with the needs to balance both sustainment and modernization 
of the NAS.
    Benefits will be achieved through the risk mitigation strategies of 
the Flight 2000 program on major communication, navigation, and 
surveillance acquisitions, as well as evolutionary development for key 
air traffic management decision support systems in the FFP1 initiative. 
All six elements of FFP1 will be providing quantifiable benefits to the 
FAA and the aviation community by the end of year 2002. Flight 2000 is 
essential to dealing with transition, system performance, procedural 
development, and defining benefits that could occur with voluntary user 
equipage. The most immediate benefit is demonstrating the safety 
improvements that can be realized by improved pilot and controller 
situational awareness.
    Question. What activities has the agency decided to scale back, 
delay, or eliminate from its modernization efforts? What are the 
implications for the cost, direction, and pace of NAS modernization?
    Answer. Although the preliminary scheduling changes show that 
modernization is feasible within existing budget, the full analysis 
will not be completed until approximately July of this year and will 
become the technical, schedule and cost component of the Architecture. 
Most decision support systems (automation/controller tools) will reach 
initial operational capability as planned, but the NAS-wide full 
operational capability of these tools will occur later. The 
communication, navigation, and surveillance related improvements could 
be deferred from one to three years, and the infrastructure replacement 
programs (especially facility modernization) could be deferred to allow 
acceleration of automation tools that will provide more benefits to NAS 
users.
    Question. What steps does the FAA plan to take to mitigate the 
risks associated with certifying and deploying new technologies 
associated with NAS modernization?
    Answer. Flight 2000 will demonstrate NAS modernization on a 
manageable scale before deployment to the remaining NAS. One of the 
chief benefits of such a demonstration is the ability to identify and 
mitigate technical, operational, and institutional risks associated 
with modernization. Achieving low cost avionics is an example of Flight 
2000 risk mitigation. The FAA will work jointly with the aviation 
community to define, select, acquire, certify, and install new 
communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) capable avionics. 
Performance requirements for multiple aircraft avionics suites and 
integration with corresponding ground systems present a number of 
operational and technical risks that will be addressed by the 
government and industry partnership. FAA and industry will use 
government and other test facilities to insure interoperability of the 
avionics and ground infrastructure.
    Similarly, FFP1 technologies will be deployed with necessary 
procedures and training to reduce the operational risks associated with 
each technology. The responsible deploying organization will work 
closely within the FAA, including unions, and the airspace users to 
ensure that the decision support tools are operationally suitable and 
enable early benefits. Risk reduction achieved by early deployment at 
FFP1 sites will help identify and validate the appropriate transition 
path to full scale national deployment.
    Question. What steps does the agency plan to take to make 
technologies more affordable to the user community? To demonstrate that 
new technologies will provide early and immediate benefits to users?
    Answer. The Flight 2000 initiative includes steps to minimize 
avionics development, procurement, implementation, and after market 
costs. The FAA will engage industry early in the program to ensure 
standards are developed to streamline and complement the manufacturing 
and certification process. To promote competition and speed the 
procurement process, the FAA will identify multiple avionics suites 
that minimize development, implementation and certification costs for a 
wide variety of aircraft. This shared government/industry development 
approach will insure maximum use of scarce resources to take advantage 
of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology. The software and 
hardware certification process will be streamlined to make 
certification less time consuming and therefore less costly.
    The Flight 2000 initiative will not only demonstrate and refine the 
Free Flight technologies but will also provide early benefits to a 
significant number of users particularly in Alaska where immediate 
safety benefits will be realized. A CONUS site, yet to be selected, 
will allow the benefits of communication, navigation, and surveillance 
air traffic management (ATM) operational improvements to be 
demonstrated in high-density traffic areas.
    Flight 2000 will help accelerate the development and certification 
cycle for avionics thereby reducing the cost to the user. Free Flight 
Phase 1 will also provide early airspace user benefits in a number of 
key ATM areas including increased efficiencies in traffic flow 
management, system capacity and the granting of user clearance requests 
(with associated fuel and time savings).
                      flight 2000 risk mitigation
    Question. How does the FAA plan to modify the Flight 2000 
initiative to address critical risks associated with communication, 
navigation, and surveillance programs?
    Answer. Flight 2000 was conceived to achieve advanced CNS 
capability, by streamlining certification of new avionics, validating 
new controller and pilot operational procedures, and driving down the 
cost of aircraft avionics equipage. Flight 2000 planning builds upon 
unaddressed but required operational improvements, set forth by the 
aviation community in the Radio Technical Communications for 
Aeronautics (RTCA) Free-Flight Implementation Plan of October 26, 1995. 
Although previously not a stated objective, optimizing the risks 
associated with Free-Flight has been an integral part of Flight 2000 
from the outset.
    Many of the technical risks associated with new CNS systems are 
addressed by industry or other FAA programs as part of technical 
development. All too often in the past, operational and institutional 
risks have been overlooked, preventing realization of operational 
capability and actual benefits to users. Through RTCA, the FAA and the 
aviation community have begun a joint planning process that more 
accurately identifies risks associated with CNS modernization. The 
Flight 2000 initiative will be refined from this work to address risk 
areas not covered in other programs or by industry, especially 
operational and institutional risks.
                          flight 2000 funding
    Question. Are the funds requested in fiscal year 1999 for Flight 
2000 based on the new risk mitigation approach?
    Answer. Risk mitigation was a primary consideration in developing 
the Flight 2000 program. The new initiatives addressed by the NAS 
Modernization Task Force have not been fully incorporated into the 
program plan, but any additional funding requirements resulting from 
the new risk mitigation approach are not expected to significantly 
impact the requested fiscal year 1999 level. As the joint FAA and 
industry risk mitigation planing proceeds and subsequent funding 
requirements are known, they will be included in Flight 2000 out-year 
budget requests.
                       nas modernization approach
    Question. What actions has the agency taken to address shortcomings 
identified by GAO that impact FAA's ability to effectively modernize 
the NAS? These included problems in the areas of systems architecture, 
cost estimating and accounting, software acquisition, and 
organizational culture? What additional actions are planned?
    Answer. FAA action is ongoing to address the GAO's recommendations 
regarding systems architecture, cost estimating and cost accounting, 
software acquisition, and organizational culture:
    Systems Architecture.--FAA has ongoing efforts to develop both a 
logical and technical architecture to guide NAS modernization. We are 
focusing on new programs through investment analysis and system 
engineering teams to define the architecture we are developing. The 
``logical'' NAS Architecture, currently Version 3.0, is derived from 
operational concepts and requirements. The ``technical'' architecture, 
which is a detailed subset of Version 3.0, will include applicable 
standards that apply across programs, software, communications, data 
management, information security, physical security, performance, and 
other operational and performance related factors. Both the logical and 
technical architectures are under configuration management. The logical 
architecture changes are also coordinated with users. When the 
architecture is approved, the FAA will have a technical baseline that 
the users and the Congress can measure performance against.
Cost Estimating and Accounting:
    Cost Estimating.--This effort includes four key elements that will 
be partially implemented starting in October 1998:
  --Standard Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to provide consistent, 
        comparable, and complete cost estimates and to track actual 
        experience for NAS modernization programs;
  --Corporate history for estimated and actual costs and schedules to 
        provide data for cost estimating and to serve as an audit trail 
        for NAS modernization efforts;
  --Cost estimating tools that will provide estimates consistent with 
        the standard WBS and will be continuously updated with actual 
        experience from the corporate history; and
  --A definitive agency-level life cycle cost estimating process, which 
        defines the roles and responsibilities of contributing 
        organizations and integrates life cycle cost estimating with 
        other FAA business processes.
    Cost Accounting.--In response to GAO as well as National Civil 
Aviation Review Commission, Government Performance and Results Act, and 
other legislation, FAA is installing a cost accounting system. A 
significant effort is underway to implement the system by fiscal year 
1999. The Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions (ARA) 
organization is serving as a pilot and is developing and evaluating 
initial capabilities during fiscal year 1998. This system will allow 
the agency to monitor the costs associated with various projects within 
the FAA.
    Software Acquisition.--FAA is undertaking a multiyear program to 
improve software engineering practices for both the FAA and its major 
suppliers. The FAA with support from the Software Engineering Institute 
Carnegie Mellon University has established an Integrated Capability 
Maturity Model (FAA-iCMM) to guide process improvement activities. The 
ARA organization has established a specific process improvement goal 
that is reflected in the fiscal year 1998 ARA Business Plan. This goal 
is to have at least 75 percent of 14 major ARA programs reach FAA-iCMM 
Level 2 by December 1999 and Level 3 by December 2001. In addition to 
improving software engineering and acquisition processes, the FAA's 
Chief Scientist for Software Engineering is leading specific 
improvement efforts in the areas of metrics, architecture, streamlining 
software certification processes for both airborne and non-airborne 
systems, and improving FAA's software and systems engineering 
competencies.
    Organizational Culture.--The FAA's organizational culture change 
initiatives have included an internal focus on improving ways to 
achieve common goals across lines of business, as well as strengthening 
public and private collaboration in our NAS modernization activities.
    An example of the internal focus would be the establishment of an 
Integrated Product Leadership Team of senior FAA executives tasked with 
making recommendations and implementing changes which strengthen the 
effectiveness of our integrated product teams as the preferred 
organizational structure of our acquisition work force. This 
organizational structure includes seeking to develop common or 
complementary performance standards across lines of business that place 
an emphasis on teamwork and collaboration versus the traditional 
stovepipe approach. It also is designed to streamline the decision-
making process in fielding new systems.
    To improve our collaboration with the external aviation community, 
the FAA continues to identify ways to include the users in our 
decision-making process. For example, we established a NAS 
Modernization Task Force, consisting of FAA, DOD, unions, and aviation 
user organizations. This task force successfully fostered a public-
private collaboration in developing a NAS modernization plan that has 
the acceptance and commitment of both the FAA and of the users we 
serve. In addition, we work hard to reach consensus for major NAS 
modernization decisions, using RTCA to bring the community together to 
provide advice and recommendations to the agency in such areas as 
operational concepts, NAS architecture, and free flight.
    Beyond our initial response to GAO, we are preparing to establish a 
pilot program, which would have many of the research and acquisitions 
work force participate in a prototype of a new compensation system. 
Under this system, salary increases will be primarily based on two 
factors: (1) Meeting quantified goals defined for the entire ARA 
organization; and (2) for significant individual achievements. This 
system will abolish pay increased based on length of service.
    Question. FAA canceled the tower segment of its automation program 
in 1997. What are FAA's plans for replacing the workstations and 
bringing new functionality to tower facilities?
    Answer. Mission needs analysis is underway to determine the global 
automation needs of the tower domain.
                              free flight
    Question. One of the key technologies identified by FAA for free 
flight-the agency's new concept of air traffic management-is the 
Initial Conflict Probe (ICP). ICP is based upon the User Request 
Evaluation Tool (URET) developed by Mitre. It is a decision support 
tool that allows en route controllers to identify potential conflicts 
between aircraft trajectories and aid controllers in resolving them. 
FAA indicated that it plans to spend about $245 million for full scale 
development of this capability and to award the ICP contract in March 
1998. A recent GAO review of URET found that quantitative performance 
evaluations were limited in that these evaluations were based on actual 
traffic data in only two centers, and they were not independently 
validated.
    FAA's en route product team, responsible for developing and 
implementing ICP, acknowledges that the limited amount of information 
on URET constitutes a technical risk and they have outlined plans to 
mitigate this risk. GAO's work cautioned that awarding the ICP contract 
before independently validating URET performance and developing firm 
requirements for ICP is unwise. GAO has previously reported that 
emphasizing concern for schedule at the expense of disciplined system 
development and careful, thorough testing has proven to be imprudent. 
How does the Task Force recommendation to begin limited deployment of 
ICP impact current plans for full scale development? Please provide 
(for the record) a list of high level milestones for ICP development 
and deployment.
    Answer. The ICP program will be redirected to accomplish FFP1 
objectives. An ICP full scale national deployment decision will be 
deferred until 2002 or beyond (when measured user benefits from FFP1 
are available).
    Question. We understand FAA is planning to deploy URET to four 
additional locations. Is this accurate? How will this affect the ICP 
deployment.
    Answer. Consistent with the RTCA Select Committee recommendation, 
the deployment of the URET will be expanded to an additional five 
sites: Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, Cleveland, and Kansas City, for a 
total of seven. The scope of ICP, including a decision regarding 
deployment of probe capability at the remaining ARTCC's, will be 
determined after the confirmation of benefits realized during the 
limited deployment.
    Question. Does FAA plan to continue with efforts to independently 
verify URET's performance capabilities? If yes, what are the time 
frames for the independent verification?
    Answer. The FAA has recently completed a simulation study of the 
URET system performance. This study was performed by the William J. 
Hughes Technical Center and completed April 1998. The results are 
documented in ``User Request Evaluation Tool (URET) Conflict Prediction 
Accuracy Report,'' Document number DOT/FAA/CT-TN98/8. Continued 
quantitative and qualitative analysis of URET performance will be part 
of the evolutionary deployment effort.
    Question. What additional testing is needed to demonstrate that the 
ICP will work effectively across center boundaries when deployed 
nationally?
    Answer. Testing of URET interfacility capability is on-going and 
will enter daily use at Indianapolis and Memphis. Deployment at the 
seven RTCA recommended sites will demonstrate the concept for a multi-
center application.
                  wide area augmentation system (waas)
    Question. The FAA is planning a transition to satellite-based 
navigation, using signals generated by the Department of Defense's 
Global Positioning System (GPS). However, GPS does not satisfy all 
civil aviation requirements and FAA is developing a Wide Area 
Augmentation System (WAAS) to enhance GPS, which will require 
additional communication satellites. FAA is planning to lease these 
additional communication satellites and plans to begin paying on this 
lease beginning in fiscal year 2002, using its Operations 
appropriation. FAA's plan was to complete WAAS development by the end 
of 2001. However, the Task Force on ATC modernization is recommending a 
slower pace for WAAS development after the completion of phase 1 in 
1999.
    The WAAS project is seeking an advanced appropriation to pay for 
satellite leases, which would provide FAA multi-year authority to 
obligate funds in future years beyond fiscal year 1999. However, FAA 
plans to enter into some form of lease agreement with a vendor before 
fiscal year 1999. What guarantees and incentives is FAA proposing to 
prospective vendors that would not obligate the government but still 
encourage them to invest their capital?
    Answer. The FAA is currently working with the Department of 
Defense's GPS Joint Program Office to define the requirements for a 
request for proposal for satellite services. While specific details 
have not yet been determined, there are some basic considerations that 
will be communicated to interested industry participants:
  --There is a strong potential for a world-wide market of related 
        services due to increased international interest in satellite-
        based navigation. This market place affords the possibility for 
        industry to pursue potential cost sharing arrangements with a 
        large return on their investment.
  --The potential for satellite services extends well beyond the FAA's 
        near term requirements for WAAS. The FAA has other navigation, 
        communication, surveillance, and air traffic initiatives that 
        lend themselves to increased business opportunities and 
        ultimately increased profit.
    Question. Why doesn't FAA request authority to obligate funds to 
purchase or lease satellites beginning with the fiscal year 1999 
appropriations?
    Answer. The FAA has requested statutory authority that would allow 
it to obligate funds as early as fiscal year 1999 to lease satellite 
services over any number of years. The FAA's request to form a 
Performance Based Organization asks for multi-year contracting 
authority to acquire leases for Air Traffic facilities and equipment, 
research and test sites and facilities, and other real estate and 
personal property or any interest therein. The FAA currently has multi-
year authority in 49 U.S.C. 40111 and 40112 but this authority is 
limited to a base period of five years with three option years. This 
period of time is not long enough to take advantage of lower costs 
associated with amortization over a longer lease term. Satellite 
providers typically provide the lowest lease costs for satellites when 
costs are spread over the life of the satellite which is customarily 
designated as ten years.
    In addition to multi-year authority issues, the FAA is currently 
refining its satellite acquisition strategy. There are short-term 
alternatives currently being considered such as broadening FAA and NASA 
interagency agreements to add a civil aviation navigation package to 
NASA's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite contract. The Geostationary 
Operational Environmental Satellite contract directed by NOAA is also 
being considered.
    Alternatively, the FAA, like other agencies, could procure its 
telecommunications services through GSA which is the statutorily 
authorized executive agent for satellite services which can be leased 
on a ten year, multi-year basis.
    Question. Has FAA done an affordability analysis to determine that 
the Operations Appropriation can pay the expected lease costs?
    Answer. As part of the investment analysis activities conducted by 
the FAA for the WAAS acquisition program baseline in January 1998, an 
affordability analysis was prepared. This analysis concluded that the 
satellite lease costs were affordable so long as the FAA stayed on 
track to begin decommissioning the existing ground-based navigation 
infrastructure in favor of satellite navigation. In addition, the 
analysis concluded that lease costs could go down in the event these 
costs could be shared by other FAA or non-FAA users.
    Additional affordability analyses will be required in the event the 
FAA decides to retain some of the ground-based equipment as part of an 
independent back-up system. This analysis will occur over the next few 
months with the results reported to the Administrator in late 1998.
    Question. Why is the Administrator's Task Force recommending a 
slower pace for WAAS development?
    Answer. The Administrator's NAS Modernization Task Force does not 
intend to slow up implementation of WAAS, and it does not believe that 
its' plan to mitigate the risks of GPS/WAAS early on will cause a delay 
in the program. The RTCA Free Flight Steering Committee, composed of 
industry and government representatives, endorsed the approach, 
recognizing that full-scale development of new operational capabilities 
requiring both ground and cockpit enhancements pose a number of 
substantial barriers to successful implementation. Not the least of 
these is the lack of consensus and commitment on the part of the 
aviation community. In the past, failure to gain consensus and 
commitment from the aviation community has been one of the major 
factors in schedule delays and cost overruns. The NAS Modernization 
Task Force, and the RTCA Free Flight Steering Committee, believe that 
mitigating this and other risks at the front end of the process would 
help eliminate delays and additional costs later on. To that end, the 
steering committee recommends that FAA move forward on schedule with 
the development and deployment of an initial WAAS capability that will 
provide precision approach capability at limited sites with limited 
availability. Simultaneously, the FAA will continue to address the 
risks involved in the remaining phases of the WAAS program. One of 
these risk-mitigation measures is to conduct an independent assessment 
of the risks to the GPS/WAAS signal from intentional (jamming) and 
unintentional interference (mostly atmospheric). This assessment will 
help determine whether we can achieve a GPS/WAAS sole means operational 
capability in end-state WAAS.
    Question. How will this slower-paced development impact on the 
current 2001 completion date for WAAS?
    Answer. The evolutionary, building-block approach recommended by 
the NAS Modernization Task Force, which was endorsed and refined by the 
RTCA Free Flight Steering Committee, is not intended to delay the 2001 
completion date for wide area augmentation system (WAAS). With global 
positioning system (GPS)/WAAS, as with other more complex NAS 
modernization programs, the whole idea is to implement operational 
capabilities that are ready to be brought on line now while eliminating 
the risks that might cause schedule delays later on.
    Question. How has FAA addressed the continuity problems inherent in 
the WAAS system?
    Answer. The FAA is addressing the continuity issue by incorporating 
various technical solutions into the system's design to avoid 
unnecessary burdens on any one element and thereby minimizing the risks 
for failure. For example, as stated in the February 1998 Report to 
Congress (Wide Area Augmentation System Report on Program Status, 
Management, and Satellite Communications), ``The FAA and Raytheon 
conducted intensive studies as to the existing terrestrial 
communications network redundancy. As a result, the network was doubled 
as to communication linkages to preclude a single system mode 
failure.'' In addition, the FAA is pursuing additional satellite 
services to increase the system's availability. These improvements are 
being addressed using pre-planned product improvements (P\3\I) as the 
system matures from an initial (Phase I) to a final (Phase 3) 
operational capability.
                 waas and laas delays and cost overruns
    Question. Due to the delays and cost over-runs being experienced 
with WAAS and LAAS we believe, as we have told the FAA in the past, 
that there needs to be an interim plan to support en-route navigation 
and terminal precision approach requirements. Is the FAA developing 
such a plan? If so, please provide details. If not, please explain how 
the FAA plans to handle interim needs, such as new precision approaches 
and technology refresh of outdated equipment.
    Answer. With initial operational capability, that is, en route and 
CAT I precision approaches expected for WAAS in July 1999, and existing 
ground based systems providing this capability well past that date, 
there is no reason to develop an interim plan to support en-route 
navigation and terminal precision approach requirements. There will be 
an adequate overlap between the existing ground based systems and the 
upcoming WAAS system. The current WAAS implementation plan does not 
consider decommissioning existing ground based systems until 2005 at 
the earliest. Current instrument landing system (ILS) and distance 
measuring (DME) equipment will remain in service until at least 2010 
with ongoing sustainment programs. Under the ILS service life extension 
program, approximately 120 of the oldest systems have already been 
replaced or upgraded. For the DME program, fiscal year 1999 is the 
initial year to begin replacing the oldest DME equipment. Because of 
the expected July 1999 WAAS initial operational capability date, any 
new CAT I precision approaches will be handled as GPS/WAAS approaches.
                    next generation landing systems
    Question. When was the last time the FAA did a survey of airports 
with ILS/DME requirements? Please provide a copy of the most recent FAA 
list of unmet ILS/DME requirements including the benefit/cost ratio for 
each site. What are FAA's plans to update this listing?
    Answer. The last year a survey was conducted on ILS requirements 
was 1992. Although the results of that survey, appearing only on 
working papers, contained approximately 180 CAT I, II, and III sites, 
we do not have a current list of specific sites. The decision to invest 
in satellite based technology significantly reduced the FAA's ILS 
establishment program, with fiscal year 1995 being the last year for 
new category I requirements. Since that time only limited CAT II and 
III ILS projects were supported based on planned implementation of 
Local Area Augmentation System. The information follows:
    [Clerk's note.--The information referred to does not appear in the 
hearing record but is available for review in the subcommittee's 
files.]
    Question. We understand that a significant number of navigation and 
landing aids in the NAS are nearing the end of their useful lives and 
won't be able to last through a 12 year (or longer) transition to GPS 
based systems. Please provide a system by system assessment of the 
condition of each type of navigational and landing aid in the FAA 
inventory.
    Answer. Overall, our sustainment and technology replacement program 
efforts have made possible relatively stable trends for navigational 
and landing systems. Greater efforts are in place to improve and 
sustain navigation/landing systems such as VHF Omnidirectional Range 
(VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) and Localizer/Glide Slope 
(LOC/GS). The number of facilities in each group has remained 
relatively stable over the past ten years due to a generally one-for-
one upgrade program.
    The Mean Time Between Outages for the past ten years remains stable 
or shows improvement. The Unscheduled Mean Time to Restore shows some 
variance primarily due to national, regional, and local restoration 
policy.
    The number of unscheduled outages has remained relatively stable--
the LOC and GS numbers have increased somewhat, but programs are in 
progress to sustain the facilities.
    A service life extension program for Mark-1B and Mark-1C Category I 
Localizer and Glide Slope systems has been in operation for the past 
five years to provide supportable and maintainable equipment.
    The Mark-20 program, an on-going program to replace existing older 
ILS, is now nearly complete and is expected to improve the performance 
of the ILS.
    The installation of the third-generation VOR is expected to improve 
its performance. The third-generation system uses state-of-the-art 
technology, and is more readily reset via Remote Maintenance Monitoring 
(RMM). The facility can be installed either as an upgrade of the 
second-generation facility, or as a completely new facility.
    We expect to experience better performance in these areas as a 
result of the Service Life Extension Programs, the Mark-20 program, and 
the Third Generation VOR programs.
    We are composing a workgroup of specialists from NAS operations, 
operational support, logistics, requirements, research and 
acquisitions, and other organizations necessary to answer the system-
by-system assessment.
                    korean airlines accident in guam
    Question. Could the accident in Guam be contributed to an ILS glide 
slope which was out of service? Is it possible that this type of 
incident could re-occur in the continental U.S. if the current 
infrastructure is not kept up?
    Answer. Although it is the National Transportation Safety Board's 
responsibility to determine the cause or causes of the accident, and 
the NTSB has not made a final determination in this case, the FAA 
believes that the ILS glide slope was not a factor.
    A Notice to Airman (NOTAM) stating that the glide slope was 
unusable had been issued on July 7, 1997 (the accident occurred on 
August 5) and the crew was told by the approach controller that the 
glide slope was unusable.
    This accident was not related to a failure in the infrastructure. 
The ``unusable'' status of the glide slope was due to a planned 
replacement of the building housing the glide slope equipment following 
storm damage to the old building. The published instrument approach 
procedure contained provisions for safely conducting the approach 
without the glide slope, and a re-occurrence of this type of accident 
in the continental United States (U.S.) is highly unlikely.
                         waas and laas avionics
    Question. How are you planning to handle the opposition of the 
major airlines to installing WASS and LAAS avionics in their aircraft?
    Answer. The Air Transport Association (ATA) confirmed that the 
airlines fully support the installation of WAAS and LAAS, provided they 
can ultimately enable sole means navigational operations. No resistance 
is anticipated by ATA member airlines since the use of augmented GPS 
will be beneficial to all member airlines.
    Question. How long will it take for 90 percent of U.S. aircraft to 
become equipped with LAAS and WAAS avionics? What about international 
air carriers?
    Answer. The FAA Investment Analysis Report on Satellite Navigation, 
dated January 1998, assumed air carrier equipage with WAAS to reach 90 
percent in 2006 and air carrier equipage with LAAS to reach 90 percent 
by the end of 2007. These estimates were based on WAAS full operational 
capability in late 2001 and LAAS full operational capability in 2006. 
In the economic analysis, it was assumed that only Category I equipped 
air carriers (20 percent of the air carrier population) would equip 
early with WAAS avionics and the rest (80 percent of the air carrier 
population) would wait for avionics with both WAAS and LAAS 
capabilities. International air carriers were assumed to equip at the 
same rate as domestic air carriers.
    Regarding general aviation, we estimated that currently only 72 
percent of aircraft are equipped for instrument flight, and that 90 
percent of these would equip with WAAS by 2006. Since we do not expect 
the rate of equipage for instrument flights to significantly increase, 
we do not expect general aviation aircraft as a whole to ever reach 90 
percent equipage for WAAS. We assumed further that by 2009 only 34 
percent of general aviation flights would be on LAAS equipped aircraft, 
and this would represent an even smaller percentage of total general 
aviation aircraft. Thus, we do not expect that general aviation 
equipage of LAAS to ever reach 90 percent.
    Estimates of equipage rates were made after consultation with 
representative air carrier, general aviation, and avionics 
manufacturers, as well as personnel within the FAA. The estimates are 
considered to be conservative; there is a low risk that equipage will 
be slower than expected.
                    global positioning system outage
    Question. What will happen if there is a GPS outage in the U.S. due 
to problems such as signal jamming, interference from other terrestrial 
sources or a solar storm? What type of back-up plan does the FAA 
envision for a WAAS/LAAS-based system in terms of en route navigation? 
More importantly, what type of back up plan will be used for Category 
I, II and III approaches?
    Answer. The current FAA policy in event of the above is to provide 
a NOTAM highlighting the unavailability of service, similar to what is 
done today in the event of severe snow storms or hurricanes. Aircraft 
in the air under Instrument Flight Rules will then have to rely on such 
things as radar vectors from air traffic control (ATC) and/or high 
quality inertial navigation systems, if available, to provide them en 
route navigation. General aviation aircraft under Visual Flight Rules 
will revert to pilotage or dead reckoning to provide them en route 
navigation.
    For Category I/II/III approaches, a similar strategy applies if GPS 
is unavailable. ATC then would be expected to direct aircraft to 
airports that can facilitate a safe landing.
    Based on the concerns raised by the President's Commission on 
Critical Infrastructure Protection and the Congress, the FAA is 
reviewing the above policy for the possible inclusion of a backup to 
Global Positioning System/Wide Area Augmentation System/Local Area 
Augmentation System. An analysis is currently underway to assess the 
threat, establish backup requirements, and evaluate the various 
alternatives for backup.
                    next generation landing systems
    Question. Is it true that there are FAA-certified Commercial-off-
the-Shelf (COTS) ILS available which are half the price of the FAA's 
Mark 20 Military Spec version? What ILS cost basis did the FAA use when 
doing the cost benefit analysis for WAAS and LAAS?
    Answer. It is true that COTS ILS's are available that meet category 
1 requirements at approximately half the price of the MK-20 ILS. 
However, for category 2 and 3 requirements only the MK-20 is currently 
available. If additional ILS procurement is required the acquisition 
strategy would consider quantity, urgency, supportability, and the LS 
category. COTS would be considered as a viable option. The MK-20 system 
pricing was utilized when doing the cost benefit analysis for Wide Area 
Augmentation System.
    Question. As a result of delays in the GPS/WAAS program our 
Committee has continually supported steps to assure that the FAA will 
make necessary investment in acquiring Instrument Landing System 
equipment because this technology provides a very cost-effective 
airport safety enhancement. In fact, in recent years, the FAA has 
purchased nearly 200 new systems through its existing ILS contract. We 
understand that the contractor has performed well on this contract and 
this is one of the procurement success stories for the FAA in recent 
years. Would you agree? How many options remain on the existing 
contract and when does it expire?
    Answer. The contract for the MK-20 ILS is with Wilcox Electric, 
Inc., now known as Airsys ATM. Under this contract, the required 186 
systems have been delivered with 41 more available through December 
1998 through options. This was a very successful development and 
production effort with the category 3 capable MK-20 delivered on 
schedule and at contract cost. The contractor's performance was 
superior.
    Question. We have seen an ILS equipment requirements list based on 
information provided by airports and some FAA input that indicates 
there is a backlog of more than 200 airport locations that have 
identified needs for Instrument Landing Systems. What steps are being 
taken by the FAA to exercise remaining contract options for this 
equipment to meet existing needs?
    Answer. In 1992 an analysis identified approximately 180 runways 
that could qualify for ILS equipment based on FAA criteria. With the 
decision to invest in satellite based technology, and the planned 
implementation of WAAS starting in fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1995 
was the last funding year for category I sponsored ILS projects. Since 
that time only limited category II/III ILS projects were supported 
based on the planned implementation of LAAS. The current contract does 
have options available to acquire additional ILS equipment, however no 
plans exist nor are funds available for the procurement and 
installation of additional ILS equipment or the required runway visual 
range and approach lighting systems that constitutes a complete ILS 
project.
        standard terminal automation replacement system (stars)
    Question. FAA's STARS project is expected to replace 15- to 25-
year-old computers and related equipment used at FAA facilities that 
track aircraft in the airspace surrounding airports. Because the 
project experiencing software development problems, first site 
operational readiness, scheduled for December 1998 at Boston, may slip 
by four to five months. STARS human factor issues will cause further 
delay. FAA is seeking an additional $29 million in fiscal year 1998 
funds for the STARS project. This money is needed for software 
development changes, additional resources to maintain the program 
schedule, changes to address human factors issues, and the early 
deployment of STARS equipment at Reagan Washington National Airport and 
possibly the TRACON's at New York and Dallas/Fort Worth.
    In its March 1997 report on the status of the project, GAO pointed 
out that the project's life-cycle cost estimate could possibly increase 
due to expected higher costs for operating and maintaining STARS 
equipment. FAA officials disagreed, but agency officials could not 
provide GAO with any data to support their claim. How much has the size 
of STARS software grown since its original estimate?
    Answer. The current estimate for the STARS Full System Capability 
(FSC) software (the software that will provide full operational 
capability) is 188,100 newly-developed and/or modified source lines of 
code (SLOC). This represents an increase of 48,100 SLOC over the 1997 
estimate of 140,000 SLOC.
    This estimate does not include the code that will be developed to 
address human factors issues resolution. Initial System Capability 
(ISC) human factors continue to be addressed by the controllers and 
technicians unions. Once an approved implementation strategy for these 
ISC human factors issues resolution is agreed upon, the estimate for 
software code will be revised.
    Question. How confident are you that the existing software 
development problems will only lead to a four to five month slip at 
Boston? How many months will the STARS schedule slip due to human 
factors issues?
    Answer. The FAA has identified a four to five month schedule risk 
to the December 1998 Boston operational date. The exact magnitude of 
this delay will be determined after the ISC human factors evaluation 
activity is completed.
    Activities associated with identifying and prototyping solutions 
for ISC human factors issues is on-going. However, activities 
associated with software development to resolve the ISC human factors 
issues (some of which are already known) are not funded, and are 
contingent on the approval of the formal fiscal year 1998 reprogramming 
request.
    Question. Will the Facilities and Equipment baseline for STARS be 
revised upward as a result of the fiscal year 1998 reprogramming 
request?
    Answer. The Facilities and Equipment baseline for STARS will remain 
at $940.2 million and not be increased as a result of the fiscal year 
1998 reprogramming.
    Question. Can FAA, at this time, provide an updated operation and 
maintenance cost estimate for the STARS project?
    Answer. In July 1997, our estimate for operation and maintenance 
costs remained under our acquisition program baseline objective of $1.5 
billion. We are currently performing human factor assessments to 
improve the STARS system supportability. Once these activities are 
completed, we plan to reassess our support costs.
                               year 2000
    Question. FAA has renamed its Interim Host Replacement project the 
``Host and Oceanic Computer Systems Replacement project.'' The project 
is urgent because FAA cannot provide assurance that the current Host 
system at its 20 en route centers will be able to operate safely and 
avoid groundings or delays on January 1, 2000. FAA plans to request 
about $160 million in Facilities and Equipment funds during fiscal 
years 1998 and 1999 through reprogramming and new budget authority-to 
acquire, test and install the new equipment. However, this amount does 
not include the Facilities and Equipment cost of technical refreshment, 
nor does it include the cost of operating and maintaining the equipment 
over its service life. Is the Host and Oceanic Computer Systems 
Replacement project focused solely on replacing the Host hardware? Will 
FAA need to replace the rest of its Host system in the near future?
    Answer. The Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR) 
program is a four-phased program. Phase 1 of the HOCSR program consists 
mainly of hardware replacement activities focused on processor 
replacement and connection to existing peripherals and failure/recovery 
switching equipment at both domestic and oceanic Air Route Traffic 
Control Centers. Phase 2 is focused on software changes only for the 
upgrade of the National Airspace System monitor to the IBM 390 
instruction set. Phase 3 will involve the replacement of ``user'' 
interface devices (Keyboard Video Display Terminals, printers, 
communication controllers,) and their connections to the Host and 
Oceanic replacement processors. In Phase 4, the current disk and tape 
drives will be replaced as determined by operational and technical 
studies. This four-phased approach provides replacement of hardware and 
equipment in accordance with end-of-service dates.
    Question. What is the life cycle cost estimate broken down by year 
and appropriations account for the Host Replacement?
    Answer. The total life cycle cost for HOCSR is $607.2 million.\1\ 
The table below provides a breakdown of cost by year and appropriation 
account. This estimate includes technical refresh and programmed 
upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Cost estimate includes program travel and backfill overtime.

                      HOCSR LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Fiscal year                       F&E          O&M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998..........................................         79.5          0.6
1999..........................................         87.5          5.0
2000..........................................         90.1          6.6
2001..........................................         62.8         13.1
2002..........................................         23.1         13.2
2003..........................................         40.0         21.6
2004..........................................         20.7         22.0
2005..........................................          9.9         19.9
2006..........................................          8.3         20.7
2007..........................................          3.9         21.1
2008..........................................         16.8         20.8
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................        442.6        164.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What are the life cycle costs associated with FAA's plans 
to address Y2K compliance issues? Do these estimates include costs 
associated with making the Host computer year 2000 date compliant?
    Answer. Repair cost estimates for the FAA Year 2000 (Y2K) currently 
are $161.5 million. This figure includes the cost estimate for 
renovation and certification of the Host as Y2K compliant.
    Question. What is FAA's schedule for installing this new equipment? 
How will the deployment of new Host hardware to 20 en route centers 
affect FAA's plans for deploying DSR to the centers?
    Answer. The initial HOCSR hardware deliveries to the William J. 
Hughes Technical Center occurred in April 1998. The HOCSR deliveries to 
the operational sites will commence in August 1998, with the first 
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) to occur December 1998 and the 
first Operational Readiness Date (ORD) planned for February 1999. The 
IOC for the last site will occur September 1999 with a planned ORD in 
October 1999. While we are working to minimize impacts to the DSR 
schedule, there will be some adjustments. The HOCSR waterfall schedule 
was developed with the sites and regions to mitigate program risks and 
to minimize the number of schedule overlaps with the DSR program.
                            aviation weather
    Question. Please provide a table that presents the detailed 
composition of the aviation weather R&D budgets for fiscal year 1997, 
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 on a comparable basis. The detail 
should show Socrates, Juneau, national laboratory funding, program 
emphasis areas, program support, cost-benefit analysis support, in-
house civil service costs, and similar levels of detail.
    Answer. The information follows:

                                                FISCAL YEAR 1999
                                              [Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       1999
                                                                   1997 enacted    1998 enacted     President's
                                                                                                  budget request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F&E Appropriation...............................................  ..............          $3.500  ..............
R,E&D Appropriation.............................................         $13.000           5.300         $12.248
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Available...........................................          13.000           8.800          12.248
                                                                 ===============================================
In-House Personnel..............................................           0.360           0.800           0.848
Project SOCRATES................................................           1.589           3.000  ..............
Juneau Wind Shear...............................................            .400           3.500  ..............
Center for Wind, Ice and Fog....................................  ..............            .500  ..............
Aeronautical Hazards............................................            .157  ..............  ..............
National Laboratory.............................................            .947           8.367           9.118
Research Operations.............................................           1.275           1.466           1.600
Technical Center Support........................................            .470            .400            .475
Cost Benefit Analysis...........................................            .400            .200            .200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What was the program office's original request for 
aviation weather R&D at the outset of the fiscal year 1999 budget 
formulation process? Which program areas have suffered as a result of 
reductions during the budget process?
    Answer. The program office's original request for aviation weather 
research and development at the outset of the fiscal year 1999 budget 
formulation process was $22.4 million. As a result of the reductions in 
program funding for fiscal year 1999, the following lower-priority work 
will be deferred:
  --Transition of growth and decay algorithm to the NEXRAD Operational 
        Support Facility for national implementation.
  --Onboard based turbulence detection product evaluation.
  --Incorporation of boundary layer conditions into the growth and 
        decay algorithm to produce a highly reliable one hour forecast 
        of convective weather.
  --Implementation of enhanced cloud analysis into the Rapid Update 
        Cycle and Eta models.
  --Demonstration of an initial automated ceiling forecast capability 
        at San Francisco.
  --Project SOCRATES demonstration of the full system concept and the 
        design and build of a full multibeam system will be postponed.
  --Flight Information System (FIS) will not provide an impact 
        assessment of incorporating en route FIS products in the 
        cockpit, which is necessary for the definition of standards and 
        guidance for implementation.
    In addition to the above work reductions, the following lower-
priority programs will be deferred in their entirety in fiscal year 
1999 at the proposed budget level:
  --National Ceiling & Visibility--develop the capability to forecast 
        this phenomena to enhance aircraft safety, especially for 
        General Aviation.
  --Space Weather Coordination--develop the capability to determine the 
        effects of space weather on satellite systems used for 
        navigation and communication, such as the Global Positioning 
        System.
  --Oceanic Convective Nowcasting--develop the capability to provide 
        better definition of the location, timing, and severity of 
        convective weather hazards for oceanic routes.
  --Wake Vortex Detection and Dissipation--develop the capability to 
        generate high resolution data to detect wake vortex and predict 
        its dissipation to increase traffic flow.
  --Terminal Operations Analysis--develop the capability to determine 
        the benefits of improvements to terminal operations.
  --Gravity Wave Detection--develop the capability to characterize and 
        automate its detection and prediction in real-time to enhance 
        safety.
  --National Mesonet Data Consolidation--develop the capability to 
        access existing weather sensors to enhance collaborative 
        decision making.
  --Terrain-Induced Atmospheric Turbulence--develop the capability to 
        detect and eventually forecast hazardous turbulence at or 
        around airports including Reno, El Paso, Colorado Springs, and 
        others to enhance safety.
  --Volcanic Ash Forecasting--develop the capability to address the 
        unique aspects of ash movement and dissipation relative to 
        aircraft safety and traffic flow.
  --High Glance Value Displays--develop the capability for enhanced 
        user access to weather hazard information, increasing 
        collaborative decision making.
  --Emerging Weather Product Technologies--develop the capability to 
        apply results of basic research to aviation requirements.
    Question. Provide a list of weather R&D program accomplishments in 
fiscal year 1997 and the accomplishments planned for fiscal year 1998 
and fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. The following are weather research and development program 
accomplishments for fiscal year 1997 and accomplishments planned for 
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
Fiscal year 1997:
  --Achieved Aviation Gridded Forecast System (AGFS) initial operating 
        capability via aviation digital data service at the Aviation 
        Weather Center (AWC) to improve aviation advisories & forecast 
        capability.
  --Implemented NEXRAD algorithm upgrades for storm cell identification 
        and tracking and hail detection nationwide.
  --Began flight tests of water vapor sensor system on commercial air 
        carrier aircraft.
  --Weather Support to Deicing Decision Making (WSDDM) collaboration 
        with users at LaGuardia and O'Hare airports.
  --Implementation of in-flight turbulence algorithm on United Airlines 
        aircraft condition monitoring system.
  --Evaluation of convective weather Growth and Decay algorithm at 
        Memphis testbed.
  --Provided forecasts of freezing precipitation aloft via the AWC, 
        while providing improved algorithms.
  --Began formal field test of 40 km Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) model by 
        National Weather Service.
  --Performed SOCRATES infrasound detection technique studies, and 
        started development of an infrasound atmospheric model.
Fiscal year 1998:
  --Complete installation of original purchase lot of airborne water 
        vapor sensors on commercial aircraft.
  --Complete WSDDM technology transfer to Cooperative Research and 
        Development Agreement partners.
  --Commence in-flight turbulence algorithm evaluation at the Aviation 
        Weather Center.
  --Conduct demonstration of 30-minute Growth and Decay algorithm with 
        air traffic control and airline users at Dallas.
  --Implement RUC-2 at the National Weather Service.
  --Conduct San Francisco Operations Demonstration.
  --Build and test a two-beam concept demonstration system under 
        Project SOCRATES; operate system at the JFK vortex test site 
        and collect vortex signature data; collect wind sheer/
        microburst data from other sites; correlate measurements with 
        modeling efforts; conduct peer review.
  --In the Aeronautical Data Link program: define FIS Policy base 
        products; start work on standards and guidance material; and 
        establish FIS server at the W.J. Hughes Technical Center for 
        future evaluation of FIS products.
Fiscal year 1999:
  --Incorporate satellite data into an automated icing guidance 
        product.
  --Enhance the capabilities of the web-based Aviation Digital Data 
        Service and develop tools for interactive data assimilation and 
        distribution.
  --Facilitate broader industry usage of snowfall rate detections 
        capabilities.
  --Evaluate turbulence in-situ data in models to improve turbulence 
        forecasting.
  --Integrate satellite data into storm growth and decay algorithm.
  --Improve model physics and cloud initialization in both the RUC and 
        the Eta model.
  --Complete enhancement of the detection accuracy of the mesocyclone 
        NEXRAD algorithm.
  --Begin installation of supplemental purchase lot water vapor sensing 
        systems on commercial air carriers.
    Question. What additional accomplishments could be achieved in 
fiscal year 1999 if the program were funded at the program office's 
original request.
    Answer. The following additional accomplishments could be achieved 
if the program were funded at the program office's original request:
  --Complete transition of growth and decay algorithm to the NEXRAD 
        Operational Support Facility for national implementation.
  --Complete in-situ based turbulence detection product evaluation.
  --Incorporate boundary layer conditions into the growth and decay 
        algorithm to produce a highly reliable one-hour forecast of 
        convective weather.
  --Implement enhanced cloud analysis into the Rapid Update Cycle and 
        Eta models.
  --Demonstrate an initial automated ceiling forecast capability at San 
        Francisco.
  --Initiate previously unfunded aviation weather research projects, 
        including:
    --Space Weather Coordination;
    --Oceanic Convective Nowcasting;
    --Wake Vortex Detection and Dissipation;
    --Terminal Operations Analysis;
    --Gravity Wave Detection;
    --National Mesonet Data Collection;
    --Terrain Induced Atmospheric Turbulence;
    --Volcanic Ash Forecasting;
    --National Ceiling and Visibility;
    --High Glance Value User Displays; and
    --Emerging Weather Product Technologies
                  turbulence accident and injury data
    Question. The Air Transport Association (ATA) apparently maintains 
a report on accidents and injuries that is more comprehensive than the 
data maintained by the FAA. Please discuss the differences between the 
FAA's practices and ATA's with respect to passenger and cabin attendant 
injuries, especially those resulting from turbulence.
    Answer. ATA recently developed a survey instrument with which to 
obtain confidential data on turbulence events and injuries from its 
member air carriers. The result was a one-time effort to produce a 
three year ``snapshot'' of past experience of responding members for 
the period 1994 through 1996. Not all ATA members responded and the 
data collection effort will not be an on-going activity.
    As an advocacy group with voluntary members, ATA has a very 
different relationship with the air carriers than does the FAA. 
Consequently, ATA can obtain confidential data that is not provided to 
the FAA, and ATA has the option of protecting that information or 
presenting only summary information with which no member is explicitly 
associated.
    In contrast, the FAA relies on two principal sources for data on 
passenger and cabin attendant injuries from turbulence or other types 
of event. If an event qualifies as an accident, the FAA relies on data 
from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to define the 
number of serious and minor injuries involved. In addition, the FAA 
relies on its own Accident and Incident Data System to record all minor 
injuries associated with turbulence incidents that are reported to the 
FAA, either by the air carriers or by FAA safety inspectors. The FAA 
and NTSB data bases may not be as comprehensive as the singular 
snapshot that ATA has developed, but the NTSB and FAA data bases are 
ongoing and available to the public.
                         atomspheric turbulence
    Question. With specific respect to the turbulence incident that a 
United Airlines 747 encountered between Japan and Hawaii in late 1997, 
what actions is FAA taking in its RE&D program and operational programs 
so that in the future the NAS will be better able to detect and 
forecast such turbulence and to convey that information to the affected 
air traffic controllers, airline dispatchers, and pilots?
    Answer. The FAA has conducted a long-standing aviation weather 
research program that includes atmospheric and orographic turbulence 
research. This research, sponsored and funded by the FAA, has been done 
primarily by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 
conjunction with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) labs which are co-located in Boulder, Colorado. 
Research projects include in-flight turbulence algorithm evaluation, 
implementation of an on aircraft turbulence algorithm on approximately 
200 aircraft for operational evaluation, testing of ground-based 
sensors to detect and warn of orographic turbulence, as well as an 
extensive effort to coordinate international turbulence research.
    FAA is also supporting investigation and development of an airborne 
detection system that would provide warnings of a variety of 
atmospheric anomalies, including clear air turbulence, wind shear, 
thunderstorms and possibly aircraft generated wake turbulence. This 
program (SOCRATES) is being conducted under the direction of the Volpe 
Transportation Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In regards to the 
detection and forecasting for the airspace system of the future, both 
FAA and NOAA are working to achieve technology transfers into the 
operational environment. The National Center for Environmental 
Prediction (NCEP) and its associated centers, Aviation Weather Center 
and the Environmental Modeling Center, are involved in the development 
and distribution of refined turbulence products that will be used by 
Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS), Weather and Radar Processor 
(WARP), National Weather Service (NWS), Automated Weather Information 
Processing System (AWIPS), and the future weather switches and 
communication links to support system safety and efficiency. These 
products will also be available to commercial weather companies.
    In the operational area, in 1995 and 1996 the FAA produced and 
distributed a Wake Vortex Training Aid (textual and graphic) with a 
supporting video tape and a stand-alone CD-ROM encompassing the 
training aid. In October 1997, a refined and updated Advisory Circular 
on Atmospheric Turbulence Avoidance, which included a recommended model 
for a turbulence tracking and avoidance system for air operators, was 
issued. As a part of the ``Turbulence Happens'' program, the FAA has 
issued informational pamphlets and handouts to raise the flying 
public's awareness of the need to ``keep your seat belt fastened when 
you are seated.'' Seat belt usage was the subject of a Flight Standards 
Air Transport Bulletin distributed to all air carriers through their 
respective operations inspectors to encourage Captains to reiterate 
during passenger briefings and announcements to the passengers the 
importance of staying ``belted' when seated.
    Question. What progress has been made in the last year to better 
detect and disseminate turbulence information?
    Answer. In the past year, efforts of a Turbulence Product 
Development Team (PDT), under the direction of the FAA's Aviation 
Weather Research program, have resulted in the integration of an on-
board (in-situ) turbulence detection algorithm into the software of the 
aircraft condition monitoring system (ACMS) on board several United 
Airlines aircraft. This algorithm has been installed on five United 
Airlines 737 and 757 aircraft and is currently undergoing evaluation. 
The in-situ algorithm provides the only source of near real-time 
quantifiable turbulence detection data, which will be utilized to 
validate turbulence forecast models and be made available to 
operational forecasters at the Aviation Weather Center (AWC) in Kansas 
City. Additionally, PDT efforts have also been directed towards the 
development of an integrated turbulence forecasting algorithm which is 
currently undergoing evaluation by forecasters at the AWC and the 
development of improved NEXRAD/TDWR enroute and terminal turbulence 
detection algorithms to leverage off these existing sensor networks.
    In addition, the FAA's Aircraft, Avionics, and Navigation IPT is 
investigating a new technology under the SOCRATES program for the 
detection, location, and tracking of air turbulence. In this effort, 
two sets of field tests have been conducted. The first tests in the 
Fall of 1997 examined the acoustic characteristics of wake vortices, 
and the second tests in the Spring of 1998 at the John F. Kennedy 
International Airport provided quantitative measurements for lidar-
acoustic characteristics of wake vortices. The results to date are 
promising.
                            aviation weather
    Question. What have been the recommendations of the Air Traffic 
Management Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering, and Development 
(RE&D) Advisory Committee regarding aviation weather R&D? What is the 
current status of that subcommittee's report? Please provide a copy of 
that report to the subcommittee along with the FAA's planned actions to 
deal with the reports recommendations.
    Answer. The subcommittee's report was approved by the R,E&D 
Advisory Committee at its meeting on January 29-30, 1998. The 
subcommittee report follows.
    In recommendation number 3, paragraph 5.2.2.1, the subcommittee 
made the following recommendation: ``The Associate Administrator for 
Research and Acquisitions, ARA-1, should establish a separate weather 
IPT within the AND organization, to focus the leadership and 
responsibility for all research, engineering, development, and 
implementation of weather projects.'' FAA has formed, within its Office 
of Air Traffic Systems Development, an IPT for Weather/Flight Service 
Systems. This office is the single point of responsibility for planning 
and executing FAA's weather research program described in chapter 4 of 
the R,E&D budget. Additionally, this office has responsibility for 
development and deployment of FAA systems for distributing current 
weather reports and weather forecasts. These systems include the 
integrated terminal weather system (ITWS), weather and radar processor 
(WARP), and operational and supportability implementation system 
(OASIS) as described in the F&E budget.
  Final Report of the Aviation Weather Subcommittee, Federal Aviation 
  Administration, Research, Engineering and Development Subcommittee, 
                            October 31, 1995
                            1. introduction
    At the August 31, 1994 meeting of the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) 
Advisory Committee, Mr. Najeeb E. Halaby agreed to chair a subcommittee 
effort to study the FAA's aviation weather programs. Mr. Carl P. 
McCullough was appointed Designated Federal Official.
    The Aviation Weather Subcommittee was asked to identify and 
prioritize aviation weather research and development efforts and 
operational procedures and programs that should be pursued by the FAA, 
based on their potential payoff for the spectrum of users. (See 
Appendix A for the complete Task Statement). The focus of the 
subcommittee was to attempt to answer questions related to the need, 
adequacy, depth, and the pace of the weather research and operational 
problems and opportunities. To do so, the subcommittee needed to 
understand user needs and the roles and responsibilities of various 
entities, public and private, in the development and provisioning of 
aviation weather products and services to respond to user needs. For 
the purposes of this report, ``user'' refers to pilots, controllers, 
dispatchers, traffic managers, supervisors and others who require 
aviation weather products in the performance of their jobs.
    To accomplish the above task FAA officials and Mr. Halaby proposed 
members for the subcommittee, who in turn helped in the selection of 
other working group members. The aviation committee volunteers 
representing different organizations participated in this study. A 
complete listing is given in Appendix B.
    The initial meeting of the Aviation Weather Subcommittee took place 
on January 25, 1995. During that meeting the charter/task statement was 
reviewed and redefined and subcommittee/working groups membership was 
expanded and approved. Many meetings, reviews and site visits were 
conducted by the Subcommittee over the next several months. This report 
presents the resulting findings, issues and recommendations.
    It should also be noted that there have been many recent studies of 
this general subject, and the Subcommittee recognizes that a 
comprehensive study by the National Research Council was published in 
March 1994 as ``Weather For Those Who Fly,'' and another study will be 
completed prior to publication of this report (October 1995). Sponsored 
by the FAA, National Weather Service, and Department of Defense, the 
latter study attempts to define organizational roles and 
responsibilities, and to offer recommended changes where appropriate. 
To the extent possible, the Subcommittee will draw upon the findings of 
these and other previous studies in sharpening its recommendations.
                          2. general findings
    Fulfilling the FAA's mission of the ``safe and efficient 
utilization of the airspace'' urgently requires a much improved 
delivery of aviation weather services to pilots, controllers, traffic 
managers, supervisors and dispatchers. Recent weather related accidents 
in both air carrier and general aviation operations as well as 
insistent demands of users of the Air Traffic Control system for 
reduced delays which are primarily due to weather, pose the greatest 
challenge to the Administrator. The policy and priority for weather 
services and products must now be restated so as to meet this 
challenge.
    Aviation weather is and will continue to be most important to the 
air transportation system. It is a principal cause of aviation 
accidents and the major cause of flight delays. Improved, delivered 
forecasts offer an important opportunity for increasing system 
capacity. Better short-term forecasts and current information on 
hazardous weather conditions are critical to ensuring safe flight. 
Timely and accurate weather information is critical to planning fuel 
and time-efficient flight plans. Weather information directly affects 
pilot/air traffic user decision making and is essential as an enabling 
technology for other key aviation Research and Development (R&D) 
thrusts, such as air traffic automation and flight management. A 
significant part of weather-related delays and accidents can be avoided 
in the future by providing all users of the system a common 
understanding of the weather phenomena. This common understanding must 
have two characteristics: the products viewed should be operationally 
useful (i.e., understood by non-meteorologists) and must provide timely 
information for effective real-time decision making.
    The FAA has understood the needs for improving the quality, 
integrity and cost of providing aviation weather to all classes of 
users. In the past decade, the FAA has launched several major R&D and 
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) programs to study, develop and produce a 
better weather detection and prediction capability. These programs are 
addressing a wide range of atmospheric conditions from thunderstorms 
and turbulence, to icing, visibility and wind shear. This effort is 
about to produce a vast amount of data. Transferring this data into 
operationally useful information and the timely dissemination of this 
information to all users who need it, when and where they need it, 
remains one of the greatest of challenges. In other words, the 
development of data communications mechanisms, namely cockpit data 
links, have not kept up with the other aspects of aviation weather 
system (e.g., sensor systems). Air traffic controllers are required to 
provide only significant weather data which is available, and to 
disseminate, time permitting, other weather advisories. On the other 
hand, pilots cannot see the same information presently available from 
ground sensors.
    Upon review, several general and major findings became apparent, 
which allowed the subcommittee to establish the critical issues. These 
findings include:
    1. There appears to be an abundance of weather data available today 
which is not being fully utilized because in part:
  --It is not provided to the users in an actionable form;
  --Timely and efficient delivery mechanisms to users do not now exist;
  --There are managerial and organizational problems and impediments to 
        cost/effectiveness; and
  --There is a lack of focused priority and emphasis on the delivery of 
        data from sensors all the way to users.
    2. Weather programs have, over the years, suffered from a lack of 
consistent policy determination by various Administrators, as to the 
agency's role and priorities. The much higher priority programs are 
those which help the controller separate and dispatch aircraft. This 
has often resulted in weather-related programs that are inconsistently 
funded, causing less than acceptable performance.
    3. It is not clear what the FAA weather requirements are and how 
they are established and prioritized. Lack of organization focus and 
process in this area is a major contributor to this problem. For 
example, the FAA agreed in 1977 that its means of compliance with the 
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 would be a comprehensive list of weather 
requirements, submitted annually by the Secretary of Transportation to 
the Secretary of Commerce. While informal and less visible 
communications have occurred, no such list has ever been provided.
    4. The R&D focus and activity have been on the weather data 
gathering (sensing, processing, integrating, etc.) rather than on data 
distribution and presentation. The controllers and pilots need a 
simple, but representative, presentation of weather hazards, locations, 
trends and forecasts. This is particularly important because of more 
reliance among commercial and military pilots on sophisticated onboard 
computers and navigational systems, and a gradual migration to concepts 
of ``free flight.'' A companion shift in aviation weather presentation 
is needed: more reliance on graphical products rather than current 
textual products to complement the above--particularly in general and 
local service aviation.
    5. A clear need exists for prudently selected research and 
development in the following areas to provide operationally useful 
products, determined by the users to be of high priority:
  --Thunderstorm movement, growth and decay;
  --Accuracy of winds aloft;
  --Ceiling and visibility prediction;
  --Icing prediction and reporting;
  --Lightning detection, tracking and reporting;
  --Clear air turbulence detection and forecasting; and
  --Wake vortices detection and tracking.
    6. While cost/benefit analyses are being performed at the macro 
(NAS) and micro (individual acquisition program) levels, none that we 
have seen is being done as an input to focus and prioritize the FAA's 
aviation weather research activities.
    7. The FAA's current mission is to provide aircraft separation 
assurance and traffic management directives (i.e., ``separate metal 
from metal''). This mission does not extend into the separation of 
aircraft from hazardous weather. As a result, the role of controllers 
in aviation weather has been of a limited advisory nature, partly 
because weather observations and forecasts have not been adequate. Some 
pilots have information from onboard radar or direct visual observation 
that is temporally and/or spatially more accurate than information 
available to the controller. Furthermore, with the exception of wind 
shear at sites with Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) and advanced 
Low Level Wind Shear Alert System (LLWAS), the superbly equipped pilot 
will retain the advantage in accuracy for the foreseeable future. Even 
at those sites with TDWR and advanced LLWAS, the FAA believes it is 
better to provide the pilot with the wind shear information and train 
him/her to interpret the data than for the controller to initiate 
vectors to enhance safety or reduce delay. The first critical step 
toward changing this pattern is to significantly enhance the 
Information available to both controllers and pilots, so the 
cooperative system can be quickly improved.
                           3. recommendations
System Development
    The FAA should develop a weather system architecture to provide the 
proper aviation weather information to all users in a timely manner. It 
should include an end-to-end (sensor to user) subsystem that provides a 
mechanism to get the same aviation weather information to all users.. 
This system approach is absolutely essential in meeting the user needs 
and in maximizing the impact of the R&D efforts. The implementation of 
such a system must have high priority within the aviation weather 
program to reap the benefits of past investments in weather sensors and 
research products.
Organizational
    The subcommittee recognizes that, since its inception, steps have 
been taken by the FAA to improve many of the organizational and 
managerial measures that have plagued the aviation weather services for 
years. The creation of the Surveillance and Weather Integrated Product 
Team (IPT) and most recently the Aviation Weather Division within the 
Air Traffic Requirements organization has consolidated many of the 
disparate organizational entities and stakeholders into more cohesive 
units with somewhat clearer lines of responsibility. While this is a 
positive step, additional actions must be undertaken to focus decision-
making responsibility and authority for fulfilling approved aviation 
weather requirements. These include continued development of the IPT to 
involve all stakeholders, from requirements setters to the flying 
public.
R&D
    The FAA must also continue with a rational, consistent level of 
long-term R&D funding to avoid losing the impetus of the research 
continuum through major Finding fluctuations. The FAA should direct the 
focus of R&D activities toward operationally useful products so that 
the fruits of R&D can be provided to the users on a continual basis. 
This requires prioritizing R&D activities within the limited FAA 
budgets with an emphasis on generating products that provide benefits 
to both internal and external users. Furthermore, all research projects 
should be carefully chosen and, as a pan of the research activity, 
develop a comprehensive, defensible cost-benefit story and a planned-
implementation path that ensures timely operational delivery of its 
products to users.
    In view of an overall deficiency in R&D funding, the FAA should 
effectively coordinate weather-related R&D efforts of NASA, DOD and DOC 
with the FAA program. In any event, the FAA should comply with the 
agreement with DOC to provide an annual statement of weather 
requirements.
Aviation Weather Entrepreneurship
    The combination of danger, delay and demand by pilots, controllers 
and FAA leadership has fortunately developed a market for aviation 
weather products that is being exploited by non-government 
organizations and private industry. This enterprise must be encouraged 
through expedited acquisition, certification and in all available ways 
in order to expedite the introduction of services to the various 
classes of users, commercial air transport, commuters, general aviation 
and the military. This will require education and training, 
particularly of pilots, controllers and dispatchers. It must also 
involve agencies other than the FAA, particularly the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, and Department of Defense. This creative pressure from 
industry and the non-profit institutions who have contributed so much 
to the advancement of improved services can accelerate crucial 
decisions such as the adoption of digital data link so essential to 
success of translating technology into reality.
Policy
    The FAA Administrator should provide a clear and cohesive policy 
statement regarding the agency's important role in the provision of 
aviation weather services. The policy statement should reflect the need 
for further definition of the capability and responsibility of 
controllers and pilots in the issue of separating aircraft from 
hazardous weather Better understanding of organizational and individual 
responsibilities is critical to determining future priorities. This 
involves clearly delineating the authority and accountability as 
between the FAA's operations and acquisition organizations (ATS and 
ARA), so that the Administration, the Congress and the public can 
identify the official in charge of weather services in the new FAA 
structure. This will require unified and disciplined organization and 
management when such a policy is clearly established.
    Culturally, a higher level of decisiveness and discipline must be 
enforced through a stabilized line of command empowered to make and 
execute decisions. Without this, the IPT cannot realize its promise, 
and the convict and irresolution of the past will reappear in another 
shape. Hopefully, new legislation to grant the Administrator greater 
freedom in personnel and procurement matters will enable better 
management of available resources. In the interim, however, FAA 
management must improve risk calculation and its assumption and get on 
the proactive decision-making track.
    In the end, we recognize the indispensable judgment of pilots and 
controllers regarding the weather data presented to them. The 
Administrator should set policies for their training and certification 
that will lead to enhanced understanding and decision-making regarding 
weather, taking into account the many significant forthcoming changes 
in the National Airspace System.
    Finally, the FAA Administrator can and should provide leadership in 
the implementation of the above recommendations with emphasis on 
getting short-term and long-term products in the field to best meet 
user needs. This becomes even more crucial, as the availability of 
total federal dollars become limited and the FAA is forced to make some 
difficult choices with the cooperation of private industry resources.
    The members of the Aviation Weather Subcommittee are available to 
support the FAA in its critical mission of aviation weather service 
dealing with the safety and efficiency of all flights in the air 
transportation system.
                              [appendix a]
             Task Statement, Aviation Weather Subcommittee
    The Aviation Weather Subcommittee, under the Federal Aviation 
Administration Research, Engineering and Development Advisory 
Committee, is tasked to identify prioritize aviation weather research 
and development (R&D) efforts and operational procedures and programs 
that should be pursued by the FAA, based on their potential payoff for 
the spectrum of users. The subcommittee should also recommend the 
direction to be taken by the FAA to expedite the conversion of R&D 
programs into usable capabilities.
    In establishing the recommendations and priorities, the 
subcommittee should consider such factors as operating requirements and 
capabilities for the safe and efficient utilization of the airspace in 
light of available resources, as well as:
    a. Expressed needs and priorities of the users, both internal and 
external to the FAA, principally controllers, pilots, and dispatchers.
    b. The anticipated cost and complexity of a given project or 
product.
    c. The relative difficulty in time and cost required to make a 
product or system operational.
    d. The expected benefits and costs of a proposed product or system.
    e. The risks associated with the program.
    f. A vision of the probable system of 2005 and the research and 
development to be conducted in the next ten years.
    The subcommittee may engage working group experts to explore the 
elements of this tasking. Findings and recommendations are to be 
included in a report submitted to the full Research, Engineering and 
Development Advisory Committee no later than September, 1995. The full 
committee's endorsement is required prior to the final report being 
forwarded to the Administrator.
    The 1995 report will complete the subcommittee's work unless 
extended by the committee chair.
                              [appendix b]
                        Subcommittee Membership
Hon. Najeeb E. Halaby, Chairman
Mr. Albert P. Albrecht
Mr. Steven J. Brown
Captain Robert Buley
Mr. Frank J. Colson
Vice Admiral Donald D. Engen, USN (ret)
Dr. Dolores Etter
Dr. James E. Evans
Dr. Brant Foote
Brigadier General John J. Kelly, Jr., USAF (ret)
Dr. Alexander E. MacDonald
Mr. Joseph L. McCormick
Hon. John L. McLucas
Captain Dennis Newton
Dr. Ralph Petersen
Dr. Agam Sinha
Mr. Paul Smith
Captain Robert Smith
Mr. David Taylor
Mr. James Washington
Mr. John F. Zugschwert
                              [appendix c]
                              Methodology
    A final report with specific program recommendations was requested 
by September 1995 and in order to complete deliberations in the short 
time available and recognizing the unavailability of cost/benefit 
analyses, the depth of the reviews was limited.
    Two initial meetings were held in January and February to refine 
and articulate the exact problem and need, and to agree on a plan of 
attack. Three Working Groups were established to consider separate and 
distinct areas of the weather arena, corresponding to the three areas 
outlined above. To expedite the deliberation of the working groups, it 
was decided to have all subcommittee members meet together at each of 
the subsequent briefings.
    The first set of reviews and briefings was held in Boulder, 
Colorado. Subcommittee members were made aware of the weather 
activities at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Forecast 
Systems Laboratory, and United Airlines Center at Chicago O'Hare 
Airport The next series of reviews were held at the FAA headquarters, 
where members of the Integrated Product Team for Surveillance and 
Weather (AND-400) briefed members of the subcommittee on several major 
weather programs. These included: Integrated Terminal Weather System, 
ASR-9 weather system processor, TDWR, Next Generation Weather Radar 
(NEXRAD), and Weather and Radar Processor (WARP). The last set of 
formal briefings was held in the Boston area. WSI, Inc., Phillips Labs/
Hanscom AFB and MIT/Lincoln Labs were visited on July 13 and 14, 1995.
           research, engineering and development budget table
    Question. Please provide a table that shows how much the FAA 
requested for the various components of the fiscal year 1999 RE&D 
budget in its submissions to the Office of the Secretary and to the 
Office of Management and Budget. Include the fiscal year 1998 RE&D 
request in the President's budget on the same table for comparison.
    Answer. The information follows:

  RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT OST, OMB AND PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
                      SUBMISSIONS BUDGET AUTHORITY
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                  --------------------------------------
    Mode/program area/program          1998
                                    President     1999 OST     1999 OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. System Development and              $75,550      $78,171      $72,227
 Infrastructure..................
                                  --------------------------------------
    a. System Planning and               1,164        1,630        1,369
     Resource Management.........
    b. Technical Laboratory              3,341        3,341        3,268
     Facility....................
    c. Center for Advanced               5,444        5,000        4,890
     Aviation System Development.
    d. Personnel and Related            65,601       68,200       62,700
     Expenses....................
                                  ======================================
2. Capacity and Air Traffic Mgmt         9,108      185,515      132,163
 Technology......................
                                  --------------------------------------
    a. Traffic Flow Management...        2,986        5,184        2,332
    c. Runway Incursion Reduction        2,990        5,679        1,369
    d. System Capacity, Planning         1,367        2,335        1,272
     and Improvements............
    e. Cockpit Technology........        1,765          357          349
    f. General Aviation &          ...........        2,468        1,462
     Vertical Flight Tech Program
    g. Flight 2000...............  ...........      151,289      120,000
    h. Future Airways Facilities   ...........          897  ...........
     Technology..................
    i. Operations Concept          ...........        8,109        3,912
     Validation..................
    j. ATM System Analysis.......  ...........        2,800  ...........
    k. Software Engineering R&D..  ...........        6,397        1,467
        Oceanic Automation         ...........  ...........  ...........
         Program.................
        Modeling, Analysis and     ...........  ...........  ...........
         Simulation..............
                                  ======================================
3. Communication, Navigation and        15,132       23,061       11,398
 Surveillance....................
                                  --------------------------------------
    a. Communication.............        4,706        6,709        1,174
    b. Navigation................       10,426       12,768        6,718
    c. Surveillance..............  ...........        3,584        3,506
                                  ======================================
4. Weather: a. Weather Program...        3,982       13,692       11,436
                                  ======================================
5. Airport Technology: a. Airport        5,458        6,081        5,086
 Technology......................
                                  ======================================
6. Aircraft Safety Technology....       26,625       27,936       24,991
                                  --------------------------------------
    a. Fire Research and Safety..        2,049        2,098        2,098
    b. Advanced Materials/               1,700        1,351          809
     Structural Safety...........
    c. Propulsion and Fuel System        1,691        1,761        1,761
    d. Flight Safety/Atmospheric         1,660        2,100        1,494
     Hazards Research............
    e. Aging Aircraft............       12,966       13,742       11,945
    f. Aircraft Catastrophic             1,270        1,329        1,329
     Failure Prevention Research.
    g. Aviation Safety Risk              5,289        5,555        5,555
     Analysis....................
                                  ======================================
7. System Security Technology....       49,895       50,178       47,927
                                  --------------------------------------
    a. Explosives and Weapons           36,200       37,206       35,541
     Detection...................
    b. Airport Security                  4,000        4,723        4,520
     Technology Integration......
    c. Airport Security Human            4,695        3,968        4,078
     Factors.....................
    d. Aircraft Hardening........        5,000        4,281        3,788
                                  ======================================
8. Human Factors & Aviation             10,737       12,678       11,685
 Medicine........................
                                  --------------------------------------
    a. Flight Deck/Maintenance/          7,272        8,296        7,400
     System Integration HF.......
    b. A T Control/A F Human             3,078        4,098        4,008
     Factors.....................
    c. Aeromedical Research......          387          284          277
                                  ======================================
9. Environment & Energy: a.              2,891        4,832        2,739
 Environment & Energy............
                                  ======================================
10. Innovative/Cooperative                 622          356          348
 Research........................
                                  ======================================
      Total......................      200,000      402,500      320,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Within the $12.2 million requested for weather R&D in 
fiscal year 1999, how much of this amount is to continue the funding to 
be coordinated through the National Center for Atmospheric Research?
    Answer. The FAA's Aviation Weather Research (AWR) Program, as part 
of its overall strategy, has formulated Meteorological Product 
Development Teams (PDT's), to address each current research area. These 
PDT's are comprised of researchers from the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research, the NOAA's Forecast System Laboratory and the 
National Severe Storms Laboratory, the National Weather Service's 
Aviation Weather Center and National Centers for Environmental 
Prediction, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln 
Laboratory and several universities. The PDT approach is fostering 
strong collaboration and leveraging between the ``laboratories.'' Of 
the $12.2 million requested for weather R&D in fiscal year 1999, $9.1 
million is to continue the research being conducted by the PDT's, while 
$1.0 million is for research operations, $.85 million is funding FAA 
in-house activities, and $1.25 million will be utilized for William J. 
Hughes Technical Center support, cost benefits analysis, and support to 
the AWR program office.
    Question. What specific benefits will this produce for aviation 
safety?
    Answer. Major specific benefits include:
    1. Improved accuracy of current and forecasted areas of inflight 
icing, including severity and type.
    2. Improved accuracy of current and forecast snowfall type and rate 
to provide aircraft deicing decision making information to airline 
station control centers and runway plowing authorities to increase 
safety on takeoffs.
    3. Short term prediction of storm growth, initiation, and decay to 
enhance safety.
    4. In-situ and remote detection and forecast of en route turbulence 
especially clear-air turbulence to enhance flight safety.
    5. Location, timing, and severity of convective weather hazards to 
improve flight safety.
    6. High resolution and timely gridded aviation data, including 
winds, temperature, icing, and turbulence, coupled with interactive 
data assimilation, editing, and forecast tools to improve aviation 
advisories and forecast capability.
    7. Short term predictions of ceiling and visibility in the terminal 
area to enhance safety especially for general aviation.
    Question. What is the total amount that has been provided by the 
Congress for this National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) R&D 
from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1998? Please detail on a year 
by year schedule, and report what specific products have resulted.
    Answer. The total amount that has been provided to the Aviation 
Weather Research Product Development Teams for NCAR R&D is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Fiscal year                                  F&E            RE&D            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............................................................     $13,000,000      $2,600,000     $15,600,000
1994............................................................       8,800,000         100,000       8,900,000
1995............................................................      11,600,000  ..............      11,600,000
1996............................................................       5,200,000       4,000,000       9,200,000
1997 \1\........................................................         400,000       8,400,000       8,800,000
1998 \2\........................................................       3,200,000       8,900,000      12,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Juneau project.
\2\ Includes Juneau project and Center for Wind, Ice and Fog.

    Specific research products that have resulted include:
    1. Developed and implemented at the National Weather Service a 
Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) (60 kilometer resolution) followed by a RUC II 
analysis and forecast (40 kilometer resolution) capability providing 
more accurate and higher resolution upper winds, temperature, and 
precipitation data (leveraged with the National Weather Service (NWS). 
Use of this information has resulted in reduced flight times and/or 
flight delays due to more accurate data on hazardous weather and jet 
streams.
    2. Issuance of first-ever forecast of freezing precipitation aloft 
at the Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City (in response to 
regulatory activities, re: turboprop commuter aircraft). These 
forecasts have increased airspace efficiency, aircraft utilization, and 
safety especially for commuter aircraft.
    3. Commenced flight test of humidity sensor on UPS aircraft 
(leveraged with NOAA). The availability of detailed atmospheric 
moisture data in real time will be utilized to make more accurate 
inflight icing and ceiling and visibility forecasts.
    4. Completed upgrades to NEXRAD Algorithms: Storm Cell 
Identification and Tracking, Hail Detection, Mesocyclone Detection, and 
Tornado Detection (leveraged with NWS). These upgrades have enabled 
better definition of the location, timing, and severity of convective 
weather hazards resulting in enhanced flight safety and capacity.
    5. Developed a Weather Support to Deicing Decision Making System 
providing important deicing and snow removal decision making 
information to airlines, port authorities and cities. Testbeds have 
been operated at Denver, Chicago O'Hare, and New York LaGuardia 
resulting in increased safety (takeoffs), savings in use of deicing 
fluids, associated equipment and personnel costs, efficiencies in 
runway and off airport plowing and efficiencies in departures and 
arrivals. These efforts resulted in the successful technology transfer 
to industry and it is anticipated that implementation by industry will 
occur in the future.
    6. Achieved Aviation Gridded Forecast System AGFS initial operating 
capability via the ``turn-on'' of the Aviation Digital Data Service 
(ADDS) at the Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City to provide user 
access to gridded data including winds, temperature, and icing as well 
as AIRMET's and SIGMET's.
    7. Implemented inflight turbulence algorithm on five United 757's 
and 727's to provide objective turbulence measurements which will be 
downlinked for use by forecasters at the Aviation Weather Center in 
Kansas City and as inputs to turbulence forecast models.
                            aviation weather
    Question. Please provide a listing of all recipients, including 
academic institutions, of the total funding fiscal year 1993 through 
fiscal year 1998 and please detail amounts by each recipient and what 
each recipient has accomplished.
    Answer. Funding for fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1998 by 
recipient and their accomplishments are as follows (dollars in 
millions):

National Science Foundation: $0.3 F&E $0.3 RE&D
  --Research, interagency, and academia coordination.
National Center for Atmospheric Research: $19.9 F&E $10.1 RE&D
  --Development of inflight icing algorithms resulting in first-ever 
        forecast of freezing precipitation aloft at the Aviation 
        Weather Center in Kansas City,
  --Development of a Weather Support to Deicing Decision Making System,
  --Development of an inflight turbulence detection algorithm,
  --Development of algorithms to predict storm growth, initiation, and 
        decay.
NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory: $17.5 F&E $7.0 RE&D
  --Development of RUC and RUC II analysis and forecast capability 
        providing more accurate and higher resolution upper winds, 
        temperature, and precipitation data,
  --Development of Aviation Gridded Forecast System and its initial 
        operating capability known as the Aviation Digital Data Service 
        (ADDS) to provide user access to gridded data including winds, 
        temperature, and icing.
NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory: $1.2 F&E $1.6 RE&D
  --Development of upgrades to NEXRAD Algorithms: Storm Cell 
        Identification and Tracking, Hail Detection, Mesocyclone 
        Detection and Tornado Detection to enable the better definition 
        of the location timing and severity of convective weather 
        hazards.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory: $2.6 RE&D
  --Development of algorithms to predict storm growth, initiation, and 
        decay;
  --Development of preliminary algorithms to predict the burnoff of 
        stratus at the San Francisco International Airport.
National Weather Service National Centers for Environmental Prediction: 
$1.7 F&E $1.3 RE&D
  --Implementation and operation of the Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) and 
        RUC II.
National Weather Service Aviation Weather Center: $1.2 F&E $0.7 RE&D
  --Implementation and evaluation of inflight icing, turbulence and 
        convective weather algorithms.
Pennsylvania State University: $0.8 F&E $0.4 RE&D
  --Ceiling and visibility basic research contributing to development 
        of algorithms.
Oklahoma State University: $0.8 F&E $0.3 RE&D
  --Convective weather research contributing to the development of 
        storm growth and decay algorithms.
Colorado State University: $0.5 F&E $0.3 RE&D
  --Development of models to analyze and forecast winds, temperature, 
        and precipitation data.
Purdue University: $0.03 RE&D
  --Inflight icing basic research.
Desert Research Institute: $0.04 RE&D
  --Development of preliminary algorithms to predict the burnoff of 
        stratus at the San Francisco International Airport.
ARINC: $0.6 F&E $0.5 RE&D
  --Operation of the Meteorological Data Collection and Reporting 
        System to downlink winds and temperature data from aboard 
        aircraft.
Center for Wind, Ice, and Fog: $0.3 RE&D
  --Icing and freezing rain research coordination.
University of New Hampshire: $0.1 RE&D
  --Development of icing algorithms.
University of Maine: $0.1 RE&D
  --Development of icing algorithms.
    Question. If this research is deemed to be focused and important, 
why is it not supported by the National Weather Service, National 
Science Foundation, and others who support basic research at 
institutions of higher learning?
    Answer. AWR program activities are closely coordinated and 
leveraged with academia and other government agencies including the 
NOAA, directly through university grants, interagency agreements, and 
memoranda of agreements as well as through the National Science 
Foundation. Several of the AWR program research activities collaborate 
with and achieve significant leveraging with the National Weather 
Service, through the collaborative use of hardware, personnel, and 
computing resources, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) through 
the use of their research aircraft for data collection. NSF and NOAA 
employees and contractors are participants in the FAA's Aviation 
Weather Research PDT's and Leadership Team. The AWR program has focused 
its research dollars on applied research and has formulated a sound 
approach to performing weather research activities targeted to solving 
prioritized operational problems.
                           aviation security
    Question. In September 1996, the Congress appropriated $144.2 
million for the purchase and deployment of advanced security equipment 
at airports. With a major portion of these funds, FAA planned to 
purchase and install 54 advanced explosives detection devices certified 
to screen checked luggage and 489 devices to screen carry-on bags 
(trace equipment) by December 31, 1997. However, as of January 1998 
only 11 certified devices and 125 devices for carry-on bags had been 
installed. FAA now plans to complete installation by December of 1998. 
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget requests $100 million to 
further enhance airport security needs. In view of FAA's delay in 
meeting its 1997 plans to install security equipment, why do you need 
this additional money and how would it be used?
    Answer. Initial delays in the deployment of explosive detection 
technology were due to transforming an R&D product into a full 
production product with all support products such as: a valid training 
program; test procedures for factory, site, and operational acceptance; 
and integration procedures for various airport configurations. Initial 
delays were also due to air carriers determining how and where the 
technology would be implemented in the lobby or integrated into the 
baggage handling systems. The air carriers wanted to see what the 
expected selectee rate would be with the implementation of the Computer 
Assisted Passenger Screening (CAPS) system to determine how many bags 
would need to be screened by the EDS technology.
    With the implementation of CAPS well underway and all of the 
support products developed for the implementation of EDS, the 
deployment activity has accelerated. Currently, 23 units are installed 
in nine airports and all 54 units will be installed by September 30, 
1998. Fiscal year 1998 reprogramming funds of $25.1 million will 
provide for the purchase of 16 CTX systems and four second generation 
EDS to be installed by December 31, 1998. To install EDS at 79 of the 
major airports requires well over 400 units. The funding through fiscal 
year 1998 will provide for 74 of these units.
    The $100 million request in the fiscal year 1999 budget will fund 
the purchase of the security technologies to continue the deployment of 
EDS for screening checked baggage and to deploy technology to enhance 
screening of passengers and carry-on at checkpoints. The following 
technologies will be procured in fiscal year 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Quantity
             Security equipment                  est.          Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Second generation EDS to screen checked            88     $79,200,000
 bags......................................
2. Trace detection devices collocated with            75       7,200,000
 EDS.......................................
3. Trace passenger screening portals at               10       1,500,000
 checkpoints...............................
4. Trace document scanners.................           40       3,400,000
5. Automated operator assisted carry-on X-            85       7,200,000
 rays......................................
6. Hardened baggage/cargo containers.......          100       1,500,000
                                            ----------------------------
      Total................................  ...........     100,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            aviation safety
    Question. Shortly after you assumed office, you announced that FAA 
would soon issue a rule on Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) 
programs that would offer protection from punitive enforcement to 
participants in FOQA programs. This policy was first articulated by 
former Administrator Hinson three years ago. Could you tell us the 
current status of the rulemaking, and why it has taken so long to issue 
the rule?
    Answer. In developing the proposal for a Flight Operational Quality 
Assurance (FOQA) rule, some unanticipated issues have come to light. 
These issues are being discussed within the Administration as a whole, 
and the FAA expects to move ahead once they have been resolved.
    Question. We understand that the FAA is in the process of 
reorganizing its certification and inspection activities to assign 
individual inspectors to the surveillance of only one or a very small 
number of air carriers. Would you explain what considerations 
contributed to this change? How will you ensure that inspectors will 
not become ``captured'' by the airline they inspect, and that lessons 
learned from inspecting one air carrier will be shared throughout the 
system?
    Answer. The FAA recognizes the need to improve our surveillance 
program of air carriers, and the utilization of our limited inspector 
resources. The FAA with Sandia National Laboratories developed an air 
carrier oversight process which represents a new approach to FAA 
certification and surveillance of air carriers. The Air Transportation 
Oversight System (ATOS) provides for surveillance oversight using 
systems safety principles and systematic processes to assure that air 
carriers have safety built into their operating systems.
    ATOS provides for a Certificate Management Team (CMT) that brings 
principal inspectors together with geographic inspectors to work in a 
coordinated effort to manage air carrier certificates. These geographic 
inspectors will be dedicated to specific air carriers, trained in that 
air carrier's procedures and policies, but still report to and work out 
of the local district office.
    The 90-day safety review recommended an increased specialization 
and more efficient use of geographic inspectors. Current plans provide 
for geographic inspectors to participate in the development of each 
comprehensive surveillance plan. That plan is forwarded to the 
geographic inspector's supervisor for review and approval. This action 
will create a check and balance in the oversight system. This work 
assignment may change during the year if analysis of the data indicates 
that surveillance needs to be retargeted for a specific element.
                      establishing a safety agenda
    Question. You have pointed out that FAA has received hundreds of 
recommendations from a number of studies over the past few years, and 
that responding to all of them is not conducive to having a focused 
agenda. Would you explain how you winnow these recommendations down and 
decide which ones to act upon?
    Answer. On April 14, 1998, we announced Safer Skies--A Focused 
Safety Agenda. FAA, working with other government agencies, airlines, 
manufacturers, and unions will identify the major types of accidents, 
and analyze the root causes of these accidents. We will take action on 
the intervention strategies that address these root causes.
                            aviation safety
    Question. FAA has been criticized in the past for overreacting to 
the ``accident du jour'', instead of concentrating on identifying and 
addressing more probable sources of future accidents. Do you think this 
criticism is valid? If so, how will you avoid such overreaction in the 
future?
    Answer. In any safety regulatory agency, processes for after-
accident analysis and corrective measures to prevent repetition are 
mandatory and constitute good safety management. Characterizing these 
important safety functions as overreactions to the ``accident du jour'' 
trivializes them and is not a valid criticism.
    Notwithstanding this fact, FAA has several initiatives underway to 
identify potential safety problems and correct them before accidents 
occur. On April 14, 1998, we announced Safer Skies--A Focused Agenda, 
through which we will identify root causes of major accident types. 
Working in partnership with industry, unions, and other government 
agencies, we will identify actions to address the root causes.
    We recently announced a new process for certification and oversight 
of air carriers which goes beyond FAA's traditional process for 
certificating air carriers by closely examining the carrier's 
operations within the context of eight categories of system safety; 
safety culture, organizational structure, self-audit programs, training 
programs, potential safety problem areas, procedures, and management 
responsibilities.
    The Air Transportation Oversight System will permit FAA to 
determine that an air carrier's systems of operation are well designed 
and are being implemented with integrity. FAA should better be able to 
identify accident precursors and to intervene before accidents happen.
                           aviation security
    Question. The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and 
Security concluded that many of its proposals for improving aviation 
security will require additional funding, but it did not specifically 
recommend funding levels or how to fund them. What are your views or 
ideas about appropriate funding sources and levels to implement the 
Commissions recommendations?
    Answer. The FAA concurs with the conclusion of the White House 
Commission that ``. . . terrorist attacks on civil aviation are 
directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing 
Federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.'' In the 
spirit of partnership for enhancing security endorsed by the White 
House Commission, the federal government is funding air carrier 
security improvements by subsidizing the capital expenses of the air 
carriers, including some training and installation costs, through the 
purchase of advanced security equipment. The air carriers' role in this 
partnership is to use the equipment purchased effectively and pay for 
its operation and maintenance after one year. The President's fiscal 
year 1999 budget contains $100 million for continued Federal funding 
and deployment of all types of advanced security technologies.
    The ten-year cost of the new security baseline, which includes many 
of the White House Commission recommendations, is estimated at $9.9 
billion, excluding the costs associated with interim security measures. 
The FAA estimates that the ten-year cost to the Federal Government, 
airport authorities, and airlines for security programs at Category X 
airports alone would be close to $3 billion, including capital costs 
for new equipment as well as added personnel and their training. This 
averages out to $154 million per Category X airport, or slightly over 
$15 million annually for the next ten years. [Category X airports are 
defined by the Office of Civil Aviation Security as those airports that 
have 25 million, or more, passengers screened per year or that have 
other politically sensitive reasons to be categorized as such (for 
example, Washington, DC area and Puerto Rico)].
    Funding for aviation security activities is likely to continue to 
be derived from a combination of public and private sources. Regarding 
public funds include congressional appropriation, Passenger Facility 
Charges and Airport Improvement Program grants.
                  display system replacement training
    Question. Can you explain why the FAA has entered into a Memorandum 
of Understanding with the air traffic controllers union that requires 
the use of Full Performance Level--or FPL--controllers to train other 
controllers on the use of new Display System Replacement (DSR)--known 
as DSR--equipment?
    Answer. DSR has a substantial impact on the controller work force. 
The human factors associated with operating the equipment is markedly 
different from that of the current radar displays because different 
inputs to and outputs from the peripheral equipment are required. It is 
important to successful DSR implementation that controllers achieve a 
level of comfort with this new configuration. The national training 
plan must be tailored to the needs of each individual facility. 
Consequently, FAA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 
National Air Traffic Controllers Association so the controller work 
force would be involved in tailoring those facility plans and providing 
instruction on use of the equipment. The agreement does not prohibit 
FAA from utilizing other sources, such as, staff, supervisors, and/or 
contract support. It was the determination of both parties that this 
method would best prepare the work force for this significant change in 
the operating environment.
    Question. Do you expect the FAA will pay overtime wages to FPL 
controllers providing DSR training, or to controllers filling in on 
operational positions to cover for controllers going through DSR 
training? If your answer is yes, could you please share with the 
subcommittee your best estimate on how much this overtime pay will 
cost?
    Answer. Overtime wages will not be paid specifically to full-
performance controllers as reimbursement for providing training. 
However, in order to accomplish DSR training, backfill overtime funds 
will be required for controllers filling in on operational positions to 
cover for controllers receiving training and those controllers 
conducting the training. The FAA currently estimates that over $4 
million in backfill overtime will be required to support DSR training 
in fiscal year 1998. Supervisors and other qualified staff will be used 
to backfill for controllers receiving and providing DSR training in an 
effort to limit DSR backfill overtime costs to approximately $8.3 
million in fiscal year 1999.
    Question. Does the FAA have a more cost-effective method to train 
controllers on the use of DSR equipment? Specifically, the FAA 
currently has a training contract termed Air Traffic Instructional 
Services (ATIS). This ATIS contract has been in place at each of the 
affected 20 en-route FAA centers for the past 10 years. It is further 
my understanding that ATIS services cost less than half as much as the 
FAA proposal to use Full Performance Level controllers to train other 
controllers on how to use DSR equipment. If this is correct, how can 
the FAA justify not using the ATIS contract at its full capacity to 
meet the DSR training demand?
    Answer. The ATIS contract provides training support services at 
each of the DSR locations as the schedule for deployment progresses. 
The average hourly cost of contractor-provided services is less than 
the cost of controller overtime.
    The FAA uses the ATIS contract to its full capacity, within 
available resources, to meet all training needs, including 
developmental training, refresher training, new equipment training, and 
other local training. The ATIS contract is managed nationally and each 
DSR facility, in coordination with its region, decides how it will 
balance its needs with competing resources. The FAA uses a mix of 
contractor instructional staff and FAA personnel to accomplish its 
training goals.
    Question. As you know I believe that safety should be the top 
priority of your agency. As more and more people travel through the 
skies each and every year, it is crucial that more well-trained and 
capable air traffic controllers are on-duty to handle the air traffic. 
Given my beliefs and the beliefs of other members of this subcommittee, 
I am troubled to learn that the training of developmental controllers 
is being halted at a time when the FAA is hiring up to 800 new 
controllers for this fiscal year and has hired over 1,000 others in the 
past two years. Can you explain your agency's justification for this 
policy?
    Answer. Safety is the top priority of the FAA. We believe that we 
have the safest system staffed by the best trained air traffic control 
work force in the world. We are not halting developmental training; in 
fact, training is continuing in most facilities at a rather vigorous 
rate. To make the best use of our training resources, we are making 
tactical adjustments in some facilities to allow for training on new 
equipment, as well as, developmental training, refresher training, and 
other local training. Safety will not be compromised during this 
transition, nor at any time in the future.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
       reports of continuing safety violations by airtran/valujet
    Question. An FAA inspection team which concluded its work in 
November 1997, found 106 safety violations at AirTran/ValuJet. 
According to a second inspection team, 60 of the original violations 
could not be substantiated. Next, an unprecedented third team of 
inspectors was brought in to arbitrate between the first and second 
inspection teams, which disagreed over the number of ``valid'' 
violations. Why did the FAA implement unprecedented procedures for 
inspection of this particular airline? Please list the names of every 
other airline and the dates of all inspections in which the FAA has 
used this same procedure involving three inspection teams.
    Answer. There is no other case in which these same procedures were 
used as part of a National Aviation Safety Inspection Program (NASIP) 
inspection. Because of disagreements between the inspection team and 
the Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO) a second team of 
experienced inspectors was assigned to review the most serious 
allegations, and to assist the District Office in objectively reviewing 
the findings of the NASIP team. With this assistance, the District 
Office was able to substantiate over 40 of the original findings. All 
106 findings were investigated fully. These unprecedented procedures 
were implemented because of the unprecedented public interest in the 
operation of ValuJet and to ensure that any allegations were fully 
investigated and validated. However, many of the procedures used to 
follow up the AirTran/ValuJet inspection will be used on future 
inspections as a standard practice, and have been included in our NASIP 
Briefing Guide.
    Question. The original 106 violations detailed in the first 
AirTran/ValuJet inspection included falsified documents, improper 
maintenance, faulty repairs, and repeated failures to supervise 
contractors. Is it customary FAA procedure to conduct an airline 
inspection resulting in a large number of safety violations and then 
allow the airline ample time to correct the majority of those 
violations before undergoing a second inspection? Please list all other 
airlines with which the FAA has used this procedure of a ``practice'' 
inspection and given the airline comparable time to make corrections 
before sending a second and then a third team of inspectors.
    Answer. There was no ``practice'' inspection of AirTran/ValuJet. 
The second group of inspectors who went to AirTran/ValuJet were 
assigned to review the most serious allegations and to assist the 
District Office in objectively reviewing the findings of the NASIP 
team. Corrections to all safety related findings were begun immediately 
after the information was brought to the attention of the Certificate 
Holding District Office (CHDO) in Atlanta, Georgia.
    Question. How many of the original 106 violations involved serious, 
life-threatening safety concerns and how many related to paperwork 
errors? Was any instruction given that the serious, life-threatening 
violations were to be corrected immediately in the interest of public 
safety?
    Answer. There were 106 findings (not violations) recorded by the 
National Aviation Safety Inspection Program (NASIP) inspection team. A 
finding is an indicator requiring in-depth study by investigators from 
the office which oversees the airline. Due to the intense national 
interest in this airline's progress, a separate, hand-picked, highly 
experienced, independent Validation Team was assigned to attempt to 
verify the most significant of the findings. All 106 findings were 
investigated by the inspectors of the Certificate Holding District 
Office (CHDO). During the course of this in-depth investigation, 60 of 
the 106 findings could not be substantiated to support regulatory 
violations.
    The discrepancies indicated by the remaining 46 findings have been 
expeditiously corrected by the airline. The FAA has initiated 19 
separate enforcement actions covering 25 of those 46 findings.
    Any finding which indicated a significant safety-related concern 
was immediately addressed to assure the continued maximized safety of 
the traveling public. For example, an aircraft undergoing repainting at 
a vendor was determined not to have undergone the proper rudder 
balancing required after painting. The CHDO, upon learning of the 
discrepancy, notified the carrier, which immediately corrected the 
problem.
    Question. Exactly how many days elapsed between the completion of 
the original (NASIP) inspection and the re-inspection by the second 
team?
    Answer. The National Aviation Safety Inspection Program team was on 
site at the operator from October 20, 1997, to November 7, 1997. The 
final draft of the team report was completed and sent to the region on 
November 26, 1997.
    The team of inspectors (Team 2) assigned to assist the Certificate 
Holding District Office (CHDO) was on site November 24-November 25, 
1997; December 1-December 4, 1997; and December 8-December 12, 1997.
    Although the usual practice would have been to allow the CHDO 120 
days to investigate all findings and develop plans with the operator to 
address all discrepancies, this investigation and report were completed 
in 110 days on February 27, 1998.
    Question. Was there a time-related obligation to file a detailed 
compliance report?
    Answer. Although standard practice calls for each finding in the 
National Aviation Safety Inspection Program report to be closed by the 
Certificate Holding District Office within 120 days of the completion 
of the report, in this case the process was completed in 110 days. The 
company is obligated to begin making corrections to any findings 
immediately after the information is made available to them.
    Question. Did AirTran/ValuJet have the right to object and ask for 
a review of the inspectors' findings and decisions?
    Answer. Any operator is allowed to present evidence in its behalf 
to show why it believes it is operating in compliance with the Federal 
Aviation Regulations.
    Question. Did a request for review suspend the obligation to 
correct the violations?
    Answer. No. Any operations contrary to the Federal Aviation 
Regulations must be corrected immediately.
    Question. Why was the initial inspection report detailing the 106 
violations at AirTran/ValuJet considered proprietary information and 
not available for public scrutiny?
    Answer. Although in the past NASIP reports have sometimes been 
released before all the findings were fully investigated, in this case, 
due to the level of public interest, it was determined that all the 
facts and information should be released together to ensure the 
Government acted fairly. In the future, NASIP reports will be released 
after findings have been investigated fully.
    Question. With regard to the initial inspection revealing 106 
inspections, what was the experience level of each member of that first 
FAA inspection team? Please list each inspector involved in each of the 
three inspection teams and detail the experience and qualifications of 
each.
    Answer. There was one inspection conducted in accordance with the 
National Aviation Safety Inspection Program (NASIP). The inspectors 
involved on the NASIP Inspection Team were:

Kenneth G. Johnson, ANE-BOS
Wayne Seer, ANE-BOS
William Daniels, AWP-LAS
John Francissen, AGL-ORD
Mark Wilson, AAL-ANC
James Fulwood, AGL-MSP
John T. Pryde, ANM-SEA
Allan Lee, AAL-ANC
Jerome Polak, ANE-BOS
Michael McPeak, ACE-DSM
Paul LeBlanc, ASW-HOU
David Villers, AEA-DCA
Allen Shelby, ANM-PDX
William Satterfield, ASW-7
Sonny Maxwell, ASW-HOU
Roger Herd, AVR-20
Les Monteiro, AVR-20

    Biographic sketches and/or Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) 
Information Sheets follow which detail the inspectors' experience/
background. After the NASIP was completed, a team was sent to the 
Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO) to assist in the 
investigation of the most serious allegations. The inspectors involved 
in this group were:

Frank Maly, Acting AGL-201
Dan Allison, CSET--AGL-IND
Bill Dickinson, CSET--AWP-SAN
Jim Repucci, AEA-PIT

    Biographic sketches and/or ASI Information Sheets follow which 
detail the inspectors' experience/background. The inspectors that 
assisted the CHDO in finalizing its investigation and provided peer 
review of the final report were:

Dick Birnbach, AFS-900
Bill Crow, ASW-AMR CMO
Dan Allison, CSET--AGL IND
Don Klos, ASW-HOU

    [Clerk's note.--The information referred to does not appear in the 
hearing record but is available for review in the subcommittee's 
files.]
    Question. Please explain the differences among the three 
inspections of AirTran/ValuJet and detail the purpose for each of the 
three inspections.
    Answer. There was one inspection conducted of Air Tran/ValuJet in 
accordance with the NASIP. Following completion of the NASIP inspection 
a number of findings were challenged by the CHDO. A consultation team 
commissioned by the Flight Standards Service traveled to the CHDO to 
assist in the follow up of the initial findings. During this follow up 
several findings were determined to be without merit.
    The Flight Standards Certification Program Office Manager then 
participated in a final resolution of the findings and assisted the 
CHDO in addressing all initial findings in the final report.
    Question. After the first inspection, did any AirTran/ValuJet 
personnel contact any FAA or DOT personnel other than the inspectors 
involved in the inspection? If so, please provide the names of all FAA/
DOT personnel and AirTran/ValuJet personnel involved in any such 
communications, as well as, the dates of the contacts.
    Answer. After the first inspection, the certificate holding 
district office was not contacted by AirTran/ValuJet personnel other 
than routine contacts required to investigate and validate the 
findings.
    The President of AirTran contacted the Associate Administrator for 
Regulation and Certification to request a copy of the NASIP report. We 
have no record of the date of the contact.
    Question. Did any attorney, activist, or lobbyist acting on behalf 
of AirTran/ValuJet contact the FAA or DOT concerning the inspections? 
Is so, please list all dates of contacts, names of parties involved, 
and explicit details of the contacts.
    Answer. We are unaware of any such contact with the FAA by any 
attorney, activist, or lobbyist acting on behalf of AirTran/ValuJet. No 
known contacts were made with Flight Standards personnel outside the 
communication between the inspection teams and the certification 
holding district office and the carrier.
              february 14, 1996 afs-300 report suppressed
    Question. At the November, 1996 NTSB hearings in Miami, Florida, 
Mr. John Tutora, Manager, Air Carrier Branch, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Washington, D.C., testified that his superior, Mr. 
Frederick Leonelli, directed him to prepare a document, an AFS-300 
report, to provide a ``snapshot'' of the current health and condition 
of ValuJet.
    In that report, Mr. Tutora stated, ``Consideration should be given 
to an Immediate FAR-121 recertification of this airline,'' which 
everyone understood to mean ``grounding.'' Despite the reports 
explosive findings, Mr. Tutora testified, he was told to keep the AFS-
300 report ``rather confidential.'' The FAA took no action to recertify 
or ``ground'' the airline, and ValuJet was allowed to remain in air 
commerce until the airline voluntarily grounded itself on June 17, 
1996, following the deadly ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades that 
killed 110 people.
    In contrast to Mr. Tutora's testimony that he was told to keep the 
AFS-300 ``confidential,'' lead NTSB investigator Gred Feith stated at 
the August 19, 1997 NTSB meeting in Washington, D.C., that the AFS-300 
report was lost in the inbox of Mr. Bill White, a high-ranking FAA 
official. No explanation was ever given for how the report went from 
Mr. Tutora to his supervisor, Mr. Frederick Leonelli, and no 
explanation was provided for how the report moved from Mr. Leonelli to 
Mr. Bill White.
    Please state conclusively, for the record, HOW and WHY the AFS-300 
report of February 14, 1996 was suppressed by FAA officials and 
resulted in no grounding of ValuJet operations, thus setting the stage 
for the deadly Everglades crash that needlessly claimed the lives of 
110 innocent passengers and crew.
    Answer. According to testimony before the NTSB, the report was 
prepared by reviewing information available in various FAA data bases 
and did not include any on- site inspection of the operator. The two 
individuals with first-hand knowledge of the purpose of the AFS-300 
report and the handling of the AFS-300 report, are no longer employed 
by the FAA. The report was produced by AFS-330, Air Carrier Maintenance 
Branch staff personnel and provided to the Manager of the Aircraft 
Maintenance Division, AFS-300. Those individuals personally involved 
would be the only ones able to explain why the report was prepared, and 
why it was not brought to senior management attention.
    Question. At the time the AFS-300 report was prepared, the NTSB had 
two ongoing investigations involving ValuJet: (1) an uncontained engine 
failure and fire in Atlanta, GA; and (2) a hard landing in Nashville, 
TN. Nevertheless, the FAA did not notify the NTSB of their findings or 
release the completed report to them. Is it standard procedure for the 
FAA to expend time and effort (Mr. Tutora estimated that he spent five 
days preparing the report) on a report with significant findings of 
safety concerns and then fail to provide that information to the FAA 
chain of command or to the NTSB? Please state why the NTSB was not 
informed of the findings in the AFS-300 report.
    Answer. Reports compiled by staff specialists within the various 
branches under the Flight Standards Maintenance Division, AFS-300, are 
commonplace. The AFS-300 internal report was a staff review compiled 
from automated data sources available to all FAA personnel. This 
information was available to personnel at the CHDO, and particularly 
the Principal Inspectors assigned certificate management oversight 
responsibilities for ValuJet. In addition to this data, CHDO personnel 
had access to all manuals, equipment, personnel, and other items 
maintained by the air carrier. If testimony given is accurate, this 
particular report was provided to the chain of command. The AFS-330 Air 
Carrier Maintenance Branch performed the review and produced the 
analysis in the form of a report. According to testimony, that report 
was given to the Manager of the Flight Standards Aircraft Maintenance 
Division, AFS-300.
    We have been unable to establish what the Manager, AFS-300 did with 
the report until June 1996 when he presented a copy to the Associate 
Administrator for Regulation and Certification. At that time the report 
was made publicly available immediately and was given to the NTSB.
    Question. Prior to Mr. Frederick Leonelli's departure from the FAA, 
did the FAA investigate why he directed Mr. Tutora to specifically keep 
the AFS-300 report ``somewhat confidential?'' If so, please provide 
explicit details of that investigation. If FAA officials decided 
against conducting such an investigation, how does the FAA justify that 
decision?
    Answer. Although a formal investigation was not initiated, Mr. 
Leonelli, Mr. Tutora and others were questioned about the handling of 
the report. It was determined that at the same time the AFS-300 report 
was completed, CHDO had initiated a special emphasis program at ValuJet 
to evaluate its compliance posture. It was determined that although the 
CHDO did not have the AFS-300 report, its actions addressed the 
concerns raised in the report.
    Question. Was the AFS-300 report actually prepared for the sole 
benefit of Mr. Leonelli, to be kept ``confidential'' by him so that he 
could be prepared for any questions Mr. Anthony Broderick might ask him 
about ValuJet?
    Answer. Mr. Leonelli's purpose in requesting the report is not 
clear.
    Question. Does the FAA make a practice of preparing confidential 
reports concerning air carriers with perceived problems? For what 
purpose are such reports generated? Who receives such reports? Who 
retains such reports?
    Answer. Reports compiled by staff specialists within the Flight 
Standards Service are produced for various reasons. Formal FAA 
reporting is governed by various FAA Orders which detail the content, 
form and distribution of those reports. A National Aviation Safety 
Inspection Program (NASIP) report is an example of a formal document 
which is produced as a result of a formal ``Safety Inspection,'' and as 
such is provided to numerous parties. A NASIP report would include a 
complete review of aspects of an air carrier's operation. Examples of 
FAA Orders which detail procedures governing FAA Flight Standards 
reporting are FAA Order 2150.3, Compliance and Enforcement Program; FAA 
Order 8020.11, Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, 
Investigation, and Reporting; and FAA Order 8300.10, Airworthiness 
Inspector's Handbook, just to name a few.
    Question. Who made the decision to undertake a special emphasis 
review rather than recertify ValuJet?
    Answer. CHDO initiated a 120-day Special Emphasis Program on 
February 22, 1996, due to ValuJet's accelerated growth and increasing 
concern over the airline's operations. For this review, a significant 
contingent of geographic inspectors from other offices and regions was 
added to the Atlanta Flight Standards District Office inspector team. 
This inspector group performed an unprecedented number of inspections 
of aircraft, line stations, and operational procedures. As issues were 
revealed, the airline initiated prompt corrective action.
    Question. Following the ValuJet crash, has the FAA implemented 
standardized procedures for monitoring start-up airlines, including 
restraining the airline's growth if the carrier's expansion cannot be 
sufficiently monitored by the FAA? If so, please provide documentation 
of all FAA procedures put in place following the ValuJet crash to 
assure adequate monitoring of start-up airlines.
    Answer. The FAA conducted an internal evaluation of current 
policies and procedures to address the complex issues surrounding 
start-up airlines. As a result of that evaluation, a national 
certification team, the Certification Standardization Evaluation Team 
(CSET), was created to assist local offices in processing new air 
carrier certifications. For start-up airlines, this team is also tasked 
with the responsibility to ensure that adequate surveillance is 
conducted during the new air carrier's first five years of operation. 
CSET is in the process of developing this surveillance plan, and we 
anticipate implementation October 1, 1998.
    Flight Standards understands the importance of providing guidance 
to field inspectors when operators make major changes to their 
operations. Such changes such as fleet size, new airports, and support 
systems usually have a significant effect on an air carrier's 
operations. Flight Standards is currently developing a joint Handbook 
Bulletin to provide information and guidance to safety inspectors on 
evaluating carrier growth factors, resource capacities, and plans for 
growth.
    Question. Following the ValuJet crash, has the FAA in any way 
altered its standard procedure for acting upon critical internal safety 
information reflecting negatively on either the FAA or a particular 
carrier?
    Answer. The FAA has developed a computer based Safety Performance 
Analysis System (SPAS) to evaluate both current and historical safety-
related aviation data. SPAS collects data over time to show trends and 
to assist safety inspectors in detecting evolving problems. SPAS tracks 
the performance of certificate holders and summarizes that information 
for safety inspectors. A performance measure is used to compare the 
performance of a certificate holder to the performance of similar 
certificate holders and to preset limits. SPAS will assist safety 
inspectors in determining which certificate holders might need 
additional observation and what areas might need further attention.
    Flight Standards has also established a Safety Analysis Information 
Center (FSAIC) that provides analytical support and review of safety 
information directly to district offices and other users inside and 
apart from the Flight Standards Service. FSAIC has the capability of 
examining safety data for trends, and then providing this information 
directly to principal inspectors who can target surveillance resources 
and take necessary corrective actions.
    These efforts directly support recommendations of the White House 
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. Those recommendations 
specifically require the development of standards for continuous safety 
improvements and then targeting regulatory resources based on 
performance against those standards.
    Question. The AFS-300 report made mention of some 68 enforcement 
actions by the FAA against ValuJet. Nevertheless, the FAA never 
formally proceeded with recertification of ValuJet. How many 
enforcement actions against a single airline are required in order for 
the FAA to proceed with an emergency suspension of airline operations 
in the interest of public safety?
    Answer. An enforcement action represents a violation of one or more 
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The severity of the violation, 
number of times it was done, and the type of violation are part of how 
a carrier's compliance attitude is viewed. Of the 68 enforcements in 
the AFS-300 report, some were minor issues or issues that the carrier 
and FAA were working on to correct. ValuJet voluntarily entered into a 
consent order that included not flying until the FAA was assured that 
the problems that had been found had been corrected.
    The objective of FAA's safety oversight systems is to monitor and 
ensure compliance. There is no set number of enforcement actions that 
will automatically result in an emergency suspension. Generally when it 
is determined that the certificate holder lacks qualifications, 
emergency action to revoke the certificate should be taken in the 
interest of safety. These determinations are based on an evaluation of 
all safety indicators and data, not on a general count of enforcements. 
The FAA does not hesitate to take strong actions where public safety is 
the issue.
    Question. NTSB Board Member John Goglia stated that in 1994, 
ValuJet had 15 emergency landings. It operated only 14 planes at the 
time. This is equivalent to 1.07 emergency landings per plane. If a 
major commercial carrier had ValuJet's 1994 rate of emergency landings, 
Mr. Goglia said, there would be approximately 768 emergency landings 
each year, which would be more than two per day. Following the Valujet 
crash, has the FAA established a standard threshold of emergency 
landings which would warrant emergency suspension of an airline's 
operations in the interest of public safety?
    Answer. FAA has not established standard thresholds of emergency 
landings which would warrant emergency suspension of an airline's 
operation.
    Generally when it is determined that the certificate holder lacks 
qualifications, emergency action to revoke the certificate should be 
taken in the interest of safety.
    Similarly, when there is a reasonable basis to question the 
certificate holder's qualifications emergency action to suspend the 
certificate generally should be taken in the interest of safety.
    These determinations are based on an evaluation of all safety 
indicators and data, not on a specific count of a single type of 
incident.
    Question. Mr. John Tutora testified in November 1996 there was a 
``sort of urgency'' about his immediate preparation of the AFS-300 
report. Why was there not that same sense of urgency in addressing the 
problems the AFS-300 revealed within FAA hierarchy, the Atlanta Flight 
Standards Director of Operations (FSDO) and the NTSB?
    Answer. At the same time the AFS-300 report was being prepared 
there was an urgency on the part of the Certificate Holding District 
Office (CHDO) to enhance its oversight of ValuJet. In February 1996 the 
CHDO initiated a special emphasis review of carrier. This review was 
fully coordinated with the FAA hierarchy and was know to National 
Transportation Safety Board staff.
    Question. Mr. John Tutora testified in November 1996 that the AFS-
300 report was to be ``rather confidential.'' Please list every other 
instance in the last 10 years when an FAA-generated report regarding a 
particular airline was ordered to be kept confidential. If there are no 
other such instances, why was ValuJet singled out in this manner?
    Answer. There is no evidence that the AFS-300 report was ordered to 
be kept confidential, and we have found no other instances when an FAA 
generated report was ordered to be kept confidential.
    Question. Did any attorney or lobbyist, acting on behalf of 
ValuJet, contact the FAA, or to your knowledge, the DOT, between June 
8, 1995, the date of the ValuJet fire in Atlanta, and June 17, 1996, 
the date of the ValuJet grounding, concerning FAA oversight of ValuJet? 
Please provide explicit details of any such contact.
    Answer. Company attorneys communicated with FAA officials 
concerning on going enforcement actions during that time, the special 
emphasis review, the inspections that occurred following the crash of 
Flight 592 and the negotiations that resulted in the consent agreement 
signed by the FAA and the company on June 19, 1996.
    Question. Were FAA officials aware of any correspondence from an 
OMB official concerning unsatisfactory conditions he personally 
experienced on a ValuJet flight? Were FAA officials aware of any 
lobbying activities related to that letter from OMB?
    Answer. A search of FAA records indicated no OMB correspondence was 
received regarding ValuJet.
    Question. What discussions did DOT Chief of Staff Ann Bormolini, or 
any other representative of the Secretary's office, have with the FAA 
from June 8, 1995, through June 17, 1996, concerning ValuJet?
    Answer. Department of Transportation (DOT) officials were provided 
notification of any incidents or accidents involving ValuJet during 
that time period in accordance with standard operating procedures for 
such notifications. Following the crash of Flight 592, DOT officials 
were regularly briefed on the results of the special inspection that 
was underway. DOT officials were informed of the decision to cease 
operations and the signing of the consent agreement.
    Question. In 1993, the DOT issued a press release underscoring its 
commitment to low-cost carriers. Did any representative of the 
Executive Office of the President or OMB discuss this policy with FAA 
officials with regard to ValuJet prior to the crash of Flight 592?
    Answer. We are unable to find any Department of Transportation 
press release issued in 1993 that underscored a commitment to low cost 
carriers.
            investigation of inspector's job qualifications
    Question. A Department of Transportation Inspector General's report 
dated April 3, 1997, revealed the Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) 
for ValuJet at the time of the Flight 592 crash, was not qualified for 
his job, got preferential treatment when he was hired by FAA officials 
with whom he had served in the military reserves, and was allowed to 
transfer to the FAA from the Air Force on a noncompetitive basis and at 
a higher pay grade than other FAA inspectors in similar circumstances. 
The report also concluded that the ValuJet PMI falsified his civil 
experience as an aircraft mechanic on his FAA application. Is the 
individual who was the ValuJet PMI at the time of the ValuJet crash 
still employed by the FAA?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Since the ValuJet crash, and the calling into question of 
the qualifications of the ValuJet PMI, has the FAA standardized its 
requirements for inspector qualifications?
    Answer. The minimum qualification requirements for the Aviation 
Safety Inspector have not changed since OPM approval in 1988. Those 
minimum qualification standards require:
    Operations Inspector Require.--An airline transport pilot 
certificate or commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating. 
Pilot-in-command experience in large aircraft (over 12,500) pounds 
gross takeoff weight within the last three years.
    Maintenance Inspector Require.--An FAA mechanic certificate with 
airframe and powerplant ratings. Three years of supervisory experience 
in aviation maintenance.
    Avionics Inspector Require.--Aircraft avionics experience in a 
repair station, air carrier repair facility, or military repair 
station. Three years of aircraft avionics supervisory experience.
    All applicants for consideration from the competitive inventory 
apply through an automated rating and ranking system and are screened 
against the standardized qualification requirement.
    Inspector Training.--Length of initial training course: nine and 
one-half weeks for Air Carrier Ops; 14 weeks for GA Ops; 13 weeks for 
Airworthiness.
    Question. When the Office of the Inspector General's investigation 
of the ValuJet PMI was presented to the U.S. Attorney's Office, was it 
presented with a declination letter? When was the case presented to the 
U.S. Attorney's Office and when was the declination issue by the U.S. 
Attorney's Office?
    Answer. In mid-March 1997, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 
presented the results of this investigation to the U.S. Attorney's 
Office (USAO) in Atlanta, Georgia, at which time the case was declined 
for prosecution. At the time of the declination, OIG asked the USAO to 
render a written declination. At the request of the USAO, OIG then 
drafted a proposed declination letter. The USAO subsequently issued a 
declination letter dated March 25, 1997, citing the following reasons 
for declination: (1) minimal Federal interest, based upon the nature of 
the allegations; (2) administrative or other disciplinary alternatives 
were available; and (3) the statute of limitations had expired.
faa cost/benefit analysis cost/benefit analysis of ntsb recommendations
    Question. How many National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
safety recommendations has the FAA rejected because of the cost/benefit 
analysis in the last twenty-five years? Please explain every cost/
benefit analysis that FAA has produced or relied upon to reject a NTSB 
safety recommendation since 1973. Please describe the documentation 
used to arrive at each cost/benefit analysis and the documents that set 
out the analysis. Also, please identify who conducted each analysis and 
reveal any efforts the FAA made to verify the estimated compliance 
data.
    Answer. The FAA has never rejected any NTSB safety recommendation 
solely on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis. Economic concerns are 
one factor among all the policy, operational, legal, etc., that are 
considered in evaluating NTSB recommendations. Nevertheless, factors 
like cost/benefit analyses can and do influence agency decisions. 
Oftentimes, rulemaking is considered as the most appropriate response 
to NTSB recommendations, and since about 1980 the FAA has been required 
to formally estimate the costs and benefits of proposed rulemaking 
actions. Preliminary cost/benefit assessments are often made during 
formulation of rules, but formal reports of regulatory evaluations are 
prepared and kept on file only for rules that are actually proposed. As 
a consequence, the FAA generally has permanent records of economic 
assessments to accompany agency rules proposed since the early 1980's, 
but not before that and not for proposals that were considered but 
ultimately not proposed.
    In attempting to respond to the spirit of this question, records 
were reviewed to identify instances where economics played a strong 
role in an FAA decision not to comply, or not fully comply, through 
rulemaking with NTSB recommendations. Five such instances were 
identified as described below:
  --NTSB Recommendation #A8-123 (Issued 10/24/88). A recommendation 
        that the FAA require a fire extinguishment system for all Class 
        D cargo compartments in air carrier aircraft. After carefully 
        considering the recommendation, the FAA concluded in the early 
        1990's not to act upon it because of the fact that no major 
        accidents had occurred in U.S. air carrier service that would 
        have been prevented by fire extinguishment systems in Class D 
        cargo compartments. Existing fire suppression systems seemed to 
        be working satisfactorily. The FAA reevaluated the issue after 
        the 1996 ValuJet tragedy and has now complied with the 
        recommendation.
  --NTSB Recommendation #A-88-141 (Issued 11/3/88). The recommendation 
        was that the FAA require commercial operators to conduct 
        substantive background checks of pilot applicants which would 
        include verification of personal flight records and examination 
        of training, performance, and disciplinary records of previous 
        employers and Federal Aviation Administration safety and 
        enforcement records. While the FAA agreed with the intent of 
        the recommendation, the agency initially determined that 
        potential benefits would not justify the costs of the 
        recommendation. The issue is now being reevaluated by the FAA's 
        Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
  --NTSB Recommendation #A90-029, #A90-031, #A90-032, #A90-033 (Issued 
        3/21/90). A recommendation to require the use of worn brakes 
        capability (within allowable limits) rather than that of new 
        brakes in calculating stopping distances for turbojet category 
        airplanes currently in services. The FAA has not acted to 
        impose this recommendation on in-service airplanes, primarily 
        due to benefits falling short of costs, but has acted to impose 
        the recommendation on future transport category airplane 
        designs.
  --NTSB Recommendation #A91-116 (Issued 12/3/91). A recommendation 
        that the Federal Aviation Administration prohibit the use, 
        after a specified date, of cabin materials in all transport 
        category airplanes that do not comply with improved fire safety 
        standards. The FAA did not fully comply with this 
        recommendation largely because of costs, but did issue rules 
        requiring use of interior materials meeting improved fire 
        safety standards for newly manufactured aircraft and when in 
        service aircraft are refurbished.
  --NTSB Recommendation #A-95-051 (Issued 5/16/95). A recommendation 
        that all infants on air carrier flights be required to be 
        appropriately restrained during take-off, landing, and during 
        turbulent conditions. The FAA encourages and actively promotes 
        the use of effective child restraint systems for infants in air 
        transportation. The agency is currently seeking public comment 
        through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) about 
        the technical practicality and cost feasibility of requiring 
        infants to be restrained in aircraft. This current regulatory 
        action stems from discussions about the child safety seat issue 
        before the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and 
        Security and the Commission's specific recommendation 1.5. The 
        recommendation stated that ``costs alone should not become 
        dispositive in deciding aviation safety and security rulemaking 
        issues''. To date, the FAA has not required infant restraints 
        because effective restraint systems are currently not 
        available, and the cost of purchasing on aircraft seat for the 
        child may divert many families to less safe modes of 
        transportation resulting in a net increase in fatalities. This 
        issue was analyzed in a report sent to Congress in 1995. The 
        cost/benefit analysis for all of the actions described above 
        were performed by FAA employees except that significant parts 
        of the report sent to Congress on child restraint systems were 
        prepared by a private consultant. Data for all the analyses 
        were obtained through FAA, industry, and trade association 
        sources as well as from published information. The FAA also 
        attempts to obtain accurate data through other means, such as 
        independently developed data bases and studies of specific cost 
        factors. Another primary means of validating data is through 
        the public comment process.
         cost/benefit of smoke detectors and fire suppressants
    Question. It has been reported that, according to the FAA's cost/
benefit analysis, installation of smoke detectors and fire suppressants 
would cost the airline industry approximately $350 million. Even using 
the FAA's new 1997 figure of $2.7 million per human life, the loss from 
the ValuJet tragedy was approximately $300 million. Please produce any 
cost/benefit analyses the FAA conducted or relied upon before rejecting 
smoke detectors and fire suppressants since the NTSB first recommended 
the safety devices in 1980. Please also produce any cost/benefit 
analyses the FAA conducted or relied upon following the ValuJet crash 
before requiring smoke detectors and fire suppressants in Class D cargo 
holds. Why were the smoke detectors and fire suppressants too expensive 
before the ValuJet crash and not too expensive following the crash?
    Answer. With respect to any cost/benefit analyses the FAA conducted 
or relied upon following the ValuJet crash, attached is a copy of the 
full regulatory evaluation associated with the agency's final rule 
requiring fire detection and suppression equipment on the air carrier 
fleet. A copy of the summary published in the Federal Register is also 
attached. With respect to cost/benefit analyses the FAA conducted or 
relied upon before rejecting NTSB recommendations regarding smoke 
detectors and fire suppressant equipment, no formal report was prepared 
because rulemaking was not undertaken. However, included is a copy of 
the FAA's letter to the National Transportation Safety Board explaining 
why its safety recommendation concerning this issue was not acted upon. 
Also, attached are other memos, notes, and charts from our files 
related to this issue.
    When the FAA performed a cost/benefit analysis of this issue in 
1990, undiscounted costs were estimated to be $368 million and 
undiscounted benefits were estimated to be less than one third of 
costs. Benefits were estimated on the basis that U.S. air carriers had 
experienced no major accidents from Class D compartment fires. On that 
basis, the FAA's benefits estimate assumed that a maximum of one major 
accident could be expected to be prevented over the next decade if the 
rule were implemented. A value of $1.5 million per fatality averted was 
used to convert benefits into dollars for comparison with costs.
    When the cost/benefit analysis of the final rule was performed in 
1997, several important factors had changed that had significant 
impacts on the results. Due mainly to Air Transport Association members 
volunteering to install fire detection system in Class D compartments, 
the FAA's estimate of the incremental cost of the regulation was 
reduced to $294 million undiscounted. On the benefits side, additional 
incidents that occurred worldwide, including the ValuJet tragedy, 
justified estimating a higher accident rate in the absence of a 
regulation. Benefits were also increased over the 1990 estimate because 
the value used to represent the avoidance of a fatality had increased 
to $2.7 million. Taken together, these factors resulted in estimated 
benefits exceeding estimated costs.
    [Clerk's note.--The information referred to does not appear in the 
hearing record but is available for review in the subcommittee's 
files.]
                 cost/benefit analyses of airline rules
    Question. Please list all cost/benefit analyses for the last 
twenty-five years in which the airlines' cost of implementation of 
safety improvements was a factor. Please advise who prepared or 
provided that implementation cost figure in each of those cost/benefit 
analyses-was it an FAA employee, a contractor, a university, an 
airline, or an airline trade association for example? Please reveal any 
efforts the FAA made to verify the accuracy of the data.
    Answer. The FAA, through the Office of Policy and Plans, has 
conducted cost/benefit analyses or proposed and final rules since the 
early 1980's. A rapid review of our files revealed that cost/benefit 
analyses for the following rules identified to costs to airlines 
operating under either parts 121 or 135 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (FAR):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Final rules                  Issue date          FAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rules Issue Date FAR Advanced              9/26/90             121
 Qualification Program..................
Air Carrier and Commercial Operator              12/8/95         121,135
 Training Programs......................
Air Tour Operators in the State of               9/22/94             135
 Hawaii.................................
Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System          1/29/87         121,135
 and Mode S Transponder Requirements in
 the National Airspace System...........
Airborne Low-Altitude Windshear                  4/30/90             121
 Amendments.............................
Airborne Low-Altitude Windshear                  9/22/88         121,135
 Equipment and Training Requirements....
Aircraft Simulator Use in Pilot                  5/26/96         121,135
 Training, Testing, and Checking and at
 Training Centers.......................
Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing           9/24/92             121
 Program................................
Airplane Cabin Fire Protection..........         3/26/85             121
Airspace Reclassification...............        11/14/91             121
Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program for            1/30/94         121,135
 Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation
 Activities.............................
Anti-Drug Program for Personnel Engaged         11/14/88         121,135
 in Specified Aviation Activi-  ties....
Anti-Drug Program for Personnel Engaged          8/12/94         121,135
 in Specified Aviation Activi-  ties....
Carry-On Baggage Program................         5/29/87             121
Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight                6/30/88         121,135
 Recorder Equipment Requirements on U.S.
 Aircraft...............................
Commercial Passenger-Carrying Operations          5/4/98             135
 in Single- Engine Aircraft under
 Instrument Flight Rules................
Commuter Operations and General                 12/12/95         121,135
 Certification and Operations
 Requirements...........................
Design Standards for Fuel Tank Access            9/25/89             121
 Covers.................................
Emergency Evacuation Demonstration               8/19/93             121
 Procedures, Exit Handle Illumination
 Requirements, and Public Address
 Systems................................
Emergency Evacuation Procedures.........        11/10/81             121
Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT)....         6/10/94         121,135
Emergency Medical Equipment.............        12/31/85             121
Exit Row Seating........................         2/28/90         121,135
Fire Protection Requirements for Cargo           2/10/89         121,135
 or Baggage Compartments................
Flammability Requirements for Aircraft          10/23/84         121,135
 Seat Cushions..........................
Flight Attendants' Duty Period                   8/15/94         121,135
 Limitation and Rest Requirements.......
Flight Recorders and Cockpit Voice               3/26/87         121,135
 Recorders..............................
Flight Time Limitations and Rest                  6/3/85         121,135
 Requirements...........................
Floor Proximity Emergency Escape Path           10/22/84             121
 Marking................................
Ground Proximity Warning Systems........         3/17/92             135
Improved Access to Type III Exits.......         4/28/92         121,135
Improved Flammability Standards for       7/21/86 and 8/         121,135
 Materials Used in the Interiors of                19/88
 Transport Cargo Airplane Cabins........
Improved Standards for Determining               2/10/98         121,135
 Rejected Takeoff and Landing
 Performance............................
Independent Power Source for Public             10/20/89         121,135
 Address System in Transport Category
 Airplanes..............................
Location of Passenger Emergency Exits in         6/16/89             121
 Transport Category Airplanes...........
Mandatory Reporting for Emergency                3/10/88             121
 Evacuation Systems and Compo-  nents...
Miscellaneous Operational Amendments....          9/8/92         121,135
Pilot Operating and Experience                   4/21/95             121
 Requirements...........................
Protective Breathing Equipment..........         5/26/87             121
Protective Breathing Equipment Training.         8/26/93             121
Revised Standards for Cargo or Baggage           2/10/98             121
 Compartments in Transport Category
 Airplanes..............................
Revisions to Digital Flight Data                  7/9/97         121,135
 Recorder Rules.........................
Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Program:           10/31/86             135
 Final Rule No. 5.......................
SFAR 36: Development of Major Repair            12/24/96         121,135
 Data Special Flight Rules in the
 Vicinity of the Grand Canyon...........
Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance             1/5/89         121,135
 Systems................................
Training and Checking in Ground Icing           12/27/93             135
 Conditions.............................
Transition to an All State 3 Fleet               9/19/91         121,135
 Operating in the 48 Contiguous United
 States and the District of Columbia....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the final rules listed above, the FAA has proposed 
the following rules that would impose costs on airlines operating under 
parts 121 or 135:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Proposed rules                 Issue date          FAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aging Airplane Safety...................         9/24/93         121,135
Flight Crewmember Duty Period                   12/11/95         121,135
 Limitations, Flight Limitations, and
 Rest Requirements......................
Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes......         7/16/96             121
Operational and Structural Difficulty             8/4/95         121,135
 Reports................................
Repair Assessment for Pressurized               12/22/97             121
 Fuselages..............................
Revised Access to Type III Exits........         1/20/95             121
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost/benefit analyses of all the above amended rules and 
proposed rules were prepared by FAA employees. Cost information was 
obtained through FAA, industry, and trade association sources as well 
as from published information. The FAA attempts to obtain accurate data 
through other means also, such as independently developing data bases 
and conducting studies of major cost factors, such as aircraft's 
downtime for modification. Another primary means of validating data is 
through the public comment process.
    Question. Please list all cost/benefit analyses for the last 25 
years in which the FAA calculated the costs and benefits for the flying 
consumer as well as the costs and benefits for the airline industry. 
Please provide any findings documenting the projected financial and 
safety benefits the airline consumer would realize from FAA adoption of 
specific NTSB safety recommendations. Please advise who prepared or 
provided the figures documenting costs and benefits to be realized by 
the flying consumer as a result of safety improvements, and reveal any 
efforts the FAA made to verify the accuracy of the data.
    Answer. Cost/benefit analyses were prepared for all the rules 
listed above. That list is an accurate representation of the analyses 
in which the FAA calculated the costs and benefits for the flying 
consumer as well as the costs and benefits for the airline industry. 
The benefits of safety improvements are always benefits to the flying 
consumer, and are always estimated by the FAA in cost/benefit analyses. 
The costs of safety improvements cannot be categorized as costs to the 
airlines or costs to the flying consumer. Usually such costs accrue to 
the airlines first, but are eventually passed on to the flying 
consumer.
                       estimating air crash costs
    Question. To what extent does the FAA take into account the total 
cost of an air crash to the affected airline, the taxpayers who fund 
accident recovery efforts and crash investigations; and the air travel 
industry?
    Answer. In general, the following costs or values are considered in 
evaluating the potential benefits of preventing airline accidents:
  --Prevention of fatalities and injuries (passengers and crew);
  --Aircraft destroyed or damaged (airline costs);
  --Injury or damage to persons or property on the ground; and
  --Accident investigation costs when significant.
    On occasion, estimates have also been made of decreases in travel 
(loss of industry revenue) following airline crashes because of public 
concerns about safety.
                    cost/benefit analysis procedure
    Question. Does the FAA have any specific plans to re-examine its 
cost/benefit analysis procedures?
    Answer. The FAA periodically reviews its cost/benefit analysis 
procedures. The most recent guidance is contained in the FAA 
publication, ``Economic Analysis of Investment and Regulatory 
Decisions-Revised Guide,'' dated January 1998. Also, the FAA has 
implemented revised regulatory analysis procedures responding to a 
recommendation of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and 
Security that cost alone should not be dispositive in deciding aviation 
safety and security rulemaking issues.
    This guidance emphasizes that the FAA's regulatory decisionmaking 
is based on analysis and professional judgment. The agency will 
consider risk assessment, risk mitigation, social value, and economic 
consequences. Economic evaluation of regulations is only one piece of 
information considered in decisionmaking. Where practicable and 
relevant, FAA regulatory analyses will present information on:
  --Risk assessment and valuation;--Potential mitigation measures;
  --Sensitivity analysis;
  --A complete description of assumptions;
  --The magnitude, timing, and likelihood of impacts, including 
        economic impacts and their uniqueness and reversibility; and
  --The distribution and equity of the potential impacts, particularly 
        as they apply to small entities.
    Question. Airlines themselves suffer negligible monetary losses 
following an aviation disaster. The carrier's insurer replaces the 
accident aircraft. The airline may pay limited travel and lodging 
expenses for family members to attend mass memorial services or 
funerals. They may erect a monument at or near the crash site. However, 
the airline pays NO monetary damages to crash victims' families for 
lawsuit settlements or jury verdicts arising from wrongful death 
claims. All of these expenses are borne by the airline's insurance 
carrier.
    Any additional monetary loss an airline suffers following a crash 
is limited to lost ticket sales from negative publicity and any 
increase in liability insurance premiums resulting from the accident. 
The only time an airline would be forced to pay lawsuit damages out of 
its own pocket would be in an unprecedented court award of punitive 
damages to the victims' families. As of this date, no punitive damage 
awards in a civil aviation disaster lawsuit have withstood judicial 
appeal, and no airline has ever been required to pay punitive damages.
    Thus, the airlines have virtually no monetary losses arising from 
an aviation disaster and little economic incentive to avoid crashes.
    Further, due to this lack of monetary loss from aviation disasters, 
there is little incentive for individual accountability by airlines, 
their top management, and personnel. Would it not seem prudent for the 
FAA to develop a practice of holding airlines, their management, and 
personnel accountable for aviation disasters through fines and 
enforcement actions? Would it not also be wise for the FAA to implement 
a procedure for barring airline management and personnel from future 
participation in the airline industry because of ``unfitness'' in 
action similar to that taken by the Department of Transportation in 
denying the application of Frank Lorenzo for ATX?
    Answer. Fines, that is, civil penalties, and other enforcement 
actions are currently available in the case of aviation disasters 
provided that the accidents involve regulatory violations or call into 
question an air carrier's qualifications. Punitive suspensions for a 
specified period of time are also available; however, such suspensions 
are rare because the disruption to carrier service is usually deemed to 
be contrary to the public interest.
    If an accident raises serious questions about a carrier's 
qualifications, the FAA can order the suspension of the carrier's 
certificate until it is able to demonstrate its qualifications. When an 
accident can be traced to such egregious conduct or incompetence that 
the FAA can prove that a carrier no longer meets the qualifications 
required to hold a certificate, the FAA can revoke the carrier's 
certificate. The FAA may deny an application for a certificate to an 
applicant whose certificate has been revoked previously. Similarly, the 
FAA may deny an application for a certificate if an applicant is 
controlled by, or intends to fill or fills certain management positions 
with an individual who exercised control over or had a management 
position in a carrier whose certificate was revoked when that 
individual materially contributed to the circumstances causing the 
revocation of that certificate.
    The FAA may impose civil penalties on individuals who committed a 
regulatory violation that may have contributed to an aviation disaster. 
Personnel who hold certificates issued by the FAA are also subject to 
suspension or revocation action.
    Question. Please advise what changes in the law and regulations 
would be needed to accomplish this new level of accountability for 
airline managers and personnel?
    Answer. All laws and regulations are in place to ensure 
accountability of airline managers and personnel.
    Question. Were any FAA employees disciplined or held accountable 
for the failures in ValuJet supervision? What and against whom were the 
discipline and accountability measures taken?
    Answer. No. The NTSB found no fault with inspectors at the field 
office level. However, the FAA did conduct a 90 Day Safety Review 
which, among other things, indicated that a restructuring and 
reorganization of the oversight of new air carriers was necessary.
    Question. Were any FAA employees disciplined or held accountable 
for the suppression of the AFS-300 report? What and against whom were 
the discipline and accountability measures taken?
    Answer. No employees were disciplined for the handling of the 
report.
    Question. Were FAA officials aware of the Department of Defense 
review of ValuJet in 1995 in which the DOD declared ValuJet unfit to 
transport military personnel? Did the FAA take any action because of 
the DOD findings?
    Answer. Yes. The DOD Air Carrier Survey was conducted August 21-25, 
1995. The report from this survey indicated that ValuJet did not yet 
meet the DOD commercial air carrier quality and safety requirements. As 
a result, ValuJet was denied entry into the DOD air transportation 
program. However, several discrepancies noted in this survey report 
addressed administrative issues specific to the Department of Defense 
and not regulatory requirements in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
    Nevertheless, all DOD concerns were investigated by the FAA. 
Subsequently, ValuJet took appropriate action to address and correct 
the DOD concerns. A following DOD Air Carrier Survey was conducted in 
January of 1996. As a result of this later survey, ValuJet received 
written notification from the Department of Defense that they were 
accepted into the Commercial Airlift Program on March 4, 1996.
    Question. Why is the Department of Defense (DOD) standard for 
ferrying defense personnel higher than the FAA standard for 
transporting military?
    Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) standards are predicated on 
DOD's requirements as a customer/consumer. Their standards include 
items beyond what may be addressed in FAA regulatory requirements, such 
as cleanliness, availability, and other consumer issues.
    Question. Why does the FAA not advise the public when the DOD 
rejects a carrier?
    Answer. The department of Defense (DOD) may reject carriers for a 
number of reasons other than safety. It would be DOD's responsibility 
to report on decisions made internal to DOD.
                            twa 800 tragedy
    Question. There have been 26 fuel-tank-related explosions since 
1963. Please produce all cost/benefit analyses and industry data upon 
which the FAA has relied in its decision not to pursue immediate 
installation of inerting systems to avoid additional tank explosions 
and needless deaths.
    Answer. The cost/benefit analysis part of a 1976 report submitted 
to the FAA by Boeing concerning nitrogen inerting follows. The report 
is a revised version of their 1974 report that was submitted to the FAA 
The Air Transport Association also submitted a report to the agency in 
1974, but that report was based on updated 1970 data. The FAA itself 
has not performed any cost/benefit analyses of nitrogen inerting
    It is precisely because those data are so outdated that the FAA has 
tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to update the 
economic data associated with fuel tank inerting. This ARAC working 
group will evaluate methods to eliminate or significantly reduce the 
hazards associated with explosive vapors in transport category airplane 
fuel tanks. The ARAC working group, with FAA participation, will 
produce proposed regulatory provisions, if appropriate, and current 
cost/benefit analyses for inerting fuel tanks and for other possible 
methods under evaluation to eliminate or reduce the explosive vapors in 
transport category fuel tanks.
    [Clerk's note.--The information referred to does not appear in the 
hearing record but is available for review in the subcommittee's 
files.]
    Question. In the aftermath of the TWA crash, has the FAA mandated 
either of the following three safety improvements which would help 
prevent a similar disaster: (a) mandatory partial or complete filling 
of the center wing tank; (b) storage/loading of cool fuel into the 
center wing tank; or (c) installation of fiber optic tank temperature 
monitoring systems, which would alert flight crews to any dangerous 
increases in interior tank temperatures.
    If the FAA has done none of these, what action has the FAA taken 
since the TWA tragedy to prevent a similar disaster?
    Answer. The FAA has not mandated any of the three items listed. The 
FAA has reviewed these proposals among the many other ideas submitted 
to the FAA during the investigation. The FAA's initial evaluation of 
these three proposals showed that none of these proposals would produce 
a significant improvement in the safety of the center fuel tanks on 
Boeing Model 747 airplanes.
    Since the tragic TWA 800 accident, the FAA has reviewed the safety 
of fuel tanks on the Boeing Model 747 and has taken steps to review the 
safety of fuel tanks on all large transport category airplanes. The FAA 
has issued a number of fuel tank safety airworthiness directives and 
notices proposing additional airworthiness directives for fuel tank 
safety. Most recently are the telegraphic airworthiness directives 
issued to inspect the fuel pump power wires inside conduits in the fuel 
tanks of Boeing Model 737 airplanes.
    Additional fuel tank safety actions taken by the FAA are:
  --The formation of the ARAC working group to evaluate methods to 
        eliminate or significantly reduce the explosive vapor in fuel 
        tanks;
  --FAA is preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will 
        propose a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applicable 
        to the large transport airplane fleet, which will:
    1. Require each type certificate holder to develop a fuel tank 
            maintenance and inspection program;
    2. Require each operator to have an FAA-approved fuel system 
            maintenance program;
    3. Require review of the original certification compliance findings 
            to 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 25.903 and 
            25.981, to revalidate that failures within the fuel system 
            will not result in ignition sources; and
  --The FAA is preparing a proposal to change Title 14 of the Code of 
        Federal Regulations, part 25, to more clearly define the design 
        requirements to eliminate ignition sources from fuel tanks on 
        transport category airplanes. A corresponding advisory circular 
        is being prepared by this team to provide guidance to 
        manufacturers when performing fuel system design review 
        required by the SFAR.
    Question. When does the FAA expect a final report from the JP-5 
fuel commission? What does the FAA expect the applicability will be to 
commercial flight?
    Answer. The concept of using increased flash point fuels is one of 
many options being considered to achieve this goal. ARAC was given six 
months (due July 23, 1998) to provide the report to the FAA.
    The applicability of mandating use of higher flash point fuels, 
such as JP-5, has not been determined at this time. The ARAC group has 
extensive representation from the petroleum industry. Surveys have been 
conducted of U.S. and European refineries to determine the impact of 
phasing in use of higher flash point fuels. Initial results indicate 
that increasing the flash point of jet fuel will impact cost of 
production and may limit availability of fuel. The degree of impact 
will be better defined as the survey results are finalized.
    Question. Does the FAA have a definition of the ``useful life'' of 
an aircraft? How and when does the FAA determine--from a structural and 
secondary systems standpoint--that a plane has reached the end of its 
useful life and should be retired?
    Answer. The FAA does not have a definition of ``useful life''. The 
FAA contends that if properly maintained, aircraft can be operated 
indefinitely. The FAA's continued airworthiness program monitors 
airplane's structural and secondary systems as they age and mandates 
corrective action as necessary. As the airplane ages it is subject to a 
greater degree of mandatory maintenance requirements, and therefore the 
``useful life'' becomes an economic decision made by the operator.
                        safety inspector reports
    Question. A GAO report of March 30, 1998, reveals that 96 percent 
of FAA inspections are not officially reported or recorded. Also, 
according to the report, 95 percent of problems officially recorded are 
self-reported by the airlines. We are also told that the FAA is 
contemplating issuing a NPRM on Flight Operations Quality Assurance 
(FOQA), which would protect the airlines from punitive enforcement 
action by the FAA for certain voluntarily-submitted safety information. 
In a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) presently being 
considered, the FAA would extend protection of certain voluntarily-
submitted safety information from public disclosure.
    Since, according to this GAO report, most FAA inspections do not 
result in any official report and carriers are allowed to self-inspect 
and self-report, if even this information is kept from the public by 
law, how will the public have any meaningful measure of airline safety?
    Answer. The GAO found that inspectors record all inspections 
activities conducted. The GAO stated however, that in 96 percent of 
inspections, inspectors did not report regulatory violations. A GAO 
survey of inspectors found that many inspections involve on the spot 
corrections to minor discrepancies noted while the safety inspector is 
conducting a surveillance activity. Usually, these items are not 
violations of applicable federal regulations, but may raise questions 
of safe operating procedures. On-the-spot corrections are made in order 
to avoid or deter more serious incidents or accidents. However, as 
reported in the GAO survey, when safety inspectors note any substantial 
disregard for the regulations or safety, a formal enforcement 
investigative report is completed and processed.
    In Public Law 104-264, Congress determined that it is in the public 
interest to protect safety information provided voluntarily by an 
operator to the FAA. The rulemakings for FOQA and voluntarily submitted 
safety information are consistent with the statutory mandate.
    Question. A March 1998, OIG report advised the FAA traded 
violations for free FAA training. Who in the FAA approved this 
practice?
    Answer. No one in the FAA approved a practice of trading violations 
for free FAA training. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU's) 
describing a voluntary arrangement between air carrier certificate 
holders and the FAA once contained language viewed by some parties as 
unclear. In January 1997, the FAA issued a bulletin to its inspectors' 
Handbook including a revised sample MOU. That revised sample MOU 
removed the questionable language and contained explicit direction to 
inspectors that normal enforcement procedures ``should not be altered 
or diminished in any way by the MOU.'' Further, existing MOU's were to 
be reissued using the revised format; new MOU's were to conform to the 
revised format.
    When OIG issued its final report on December 9, 1997, the MOU's 
were already corrected in accordance with the OIG's one recommendation.
    Question. It has been reported in the media that in 1989 and in 
1990 the FAA adopted a practice of allowing carriers to self-report 
violations with assurances of no punitive action. It is reported that 
this practice came about after FAA inspectors in Alaska tightened 
enforcement on carriers, and the carriers complained to a U.S. Senator, 
a practice which according to the GAO report released on March 30, 
1998, is widespread and has resulted in as many as 66 percent of 
inspectors giving up on even attempting enforcement action. Does the 
FAA maintain a record of congressional contacts on behalf of any 
airlines, from 1992-1998? (We are aware of the FAA-required reports of 
congressional contacts with FAA personnel, so at a minimum, please 
produce those reports.)
    Answer. The GAO report reflects that 61 percent of inspectors say 
complaints to Congress are not a reason why they would pursue 
enforcement action. The FAA does not routinely maintain records that 
would indicate congressional contact on behalf of an air carrier.
                            aviation safety
    Question. Instead of the FAA taking an adversarial posture versus 
the NTSB safety recommendations, would it not be in the general 
interest to establish an inter-agency review and resolution group with 
executive and enforcement power, which would timely address life-
threatening aviation safety problems?
    Answer. The FAA has an exceptionally responsive record of 
addressing the issues raised by NTSB safety recommendations. Since 
1967, the ``closed acceptable'' rate for recommendations issued to the 
FAA exceeds 84 percent, and the ``closed acceptable'' rate for urgent 
recommendations is 89 percent. Additionally, we meet regularly with 
Chairman Hall and other NTSB staff to discuss NTSB safety 
recommendations and other issues.
    The inter-agency review and resolution group is similar in nature 
to Congressman Wolf's proposal for a safety task force. As the FAA 
responded to Congressman Wolf, we believe an ongoing group composed of 
NTSB, GAO, and others could be of assistance by developing an index of 
safety items. It is a good tool to monitor the progress of the FAA in 
accomplishing safety goals, performance measures, and problem 
resolution. However, we do not agree that this group should have 
executive or enforcement power for aviation issues or the other 
transportation issues that are addressed by NTSB safety 
recommendations. This authority properly resides with the various 
Department of Transportation modal administrations.
    Question. At present, in what specific ways do all government 
agencies involved in aviation safety, whether civilian or military, 
work together and exchange safety information?
    Answer. At present there is no formal coordination between aviation 
safety professionals employed by the U.S. Government. Each year there 
are a number of government and industry meetings and conferences that 
are attended by representatives from various government offices during 
which aviation safety is discussed, but there are no specific meetings 
on aviation safety held where all or most government agencies are 
represented. Occasionally there is a specific aviation safety issue, 
for example wake turbulence, which is addressed by multiple government 
organizations.
    There is more being done to share safety information. All 
Government agencies involved with civil aviation safety have databases, 
which can be accessed over the Internet by other government agencies. 
All military agencies can also access this safety information, although 
civil aviation offices generally cannot access the military databases 
dealing with aviation safety. There also are a number of government 
quarterly or yearly publications that address aviation safety 
statistics and the causes and prevention of accidents and incidents.
    In May 1996, the FAA announced a new and innovative approach to 
reach the FAA Administrator's goal of ``zero accidents,'' known as the 
Global Analysis and Information Network (GAIN). GAIN would be a 
privately owned and operated international information infrastructure 
for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of aviation safety 
information. It would involve the use of a broad variety of worldwide 
aviation data sources, coupled with comprehensive analytical 
techniques, to facilitate the identification of existing and emerging 
aviation safety problems. To date, two World GAIN Conferences have been 
held (Cambridge, Massachusetts, in October 1996 and London, England in 
May 1997) and a third conference will be held in Los Angeles, 
California, in 1998. Many U.S. government aviation safety offices have 
been represented at these conferences. Through the development and 
implementation of GAIN, it is expected that more formal collaboration 
between government agencies in the area of aviation safety will result.
    Question. Is there a suspense system within the FAA that requires 
follow-up and timely responses and actions concerning safety 
violations?
    Answer. FAA Order 2150.3A provides clear guidance on the 
enforcement process. When safety issues are discovered, the inspector 
notifies the certificate holder so that corrective action can be 
initiated. The inspector then determines if a violation of Federal 
Aviation Regulations has occurred. If a violation is determined, an 
enforcement action is initiated which may result in certificate action 
or civil penalty.
    The enforcement process is tracked in the Enforcement Investigation 
System, an automated tracking system. The enforcement remains open 
until two actions occur: (1) the unsafe condition is corrected to FAA's 
satisfactory; and (2) the enforcement action is closed through the 
legal process.
                           contractor support
    Question. In testimony at the NTSB Miami hearings in November 1996, 
it was reported that SabreTech employed three teams to renovate three 
MD-80's for ValuJet. The SabreTech teams worked seven days a week, 24 
hours a day, but the ValuJet supervisory team worked only five days a 
week, eight hours a day. The SabreTech workers were unsupervised two-
thirds of the time. This appears to have been in direct violation of 
FAA regulations. What changes have been implemented since the ValuJet 
crash to insure that an outside contractor performing maintenance and 
security functions for an airline is properly supervised by both the 
airline and the FAA? Please provide extensive documentation of any such 
changes.
    Answer. Beginning July 26, 1996, inspectors are required to provide 
surveillance of air carrier major maintenance contracts as well as 
contract training programs.
    Additionally a change was made to air carrier Operations 
Specifications, which requires operators to list those contractors that 
provide substantial maintenance to an air carrier.
    Principal Inspectors are encouraged to maintain strict audits of 
air carrier contractors and vendors and to adhere to strict oversight 
procedures to ensure the regulatory compliance of the air carrier to 
its contract maintenance and training support.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
     faa reprogramming request for replacement of computer systems
    Question. The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and 
Security report, presented last year, offers almost 30 recommendations 
that together represent an ambitious plan for ensuring safety, 
security, and modernization. How can we move forward on these 
recommendations when we must divert scarce funds to replace or fix 
equipment that is hopelessly antiquated?
    Answer. Because the Host and oceanic computer systems are primary 
en route air traffic control components, the Federal Aviation 
Administration believes that supportability and potential Year 2000 
computer problems make it imperative that we begin replacement in 
fiscal year 1998. The identification of offsets for the $75.3 million 
Host reprogramming was a difficult process but we protected key 
components of the modernization program throughout the process. 
Overall, we believe our proposed list of offsets represents the least 
disruptive impact to the National Airspace System.
    Our fiscal year 1999 budget request allows us to make significant 
progress towards meeting the White House Commission recommendations. 
For example, the Facilities and Equipment budget request allows for an 
achievable ramp-up of increased investment in critical modernization 
programs: Host replacement, Display System Replacement (DSR), STARS, 
datalink, and additional Air Traffic Control (ATC) functionality tools 
such as conflict probe and traffic metering. In addition, we have 
requested $100 million to continue the acquisition and deployment of 
advanced security equipment to the Nation's airports. The request for 
Research Engineering and Development includes a significant increase to 
support Flight 2000, a major demonstration of free flight technology.
                        year 2000 (y2k) problem
    Question. The FAA has requested a reprogramming that includes $37.7 
million for the rest of fiscal year 1998 for addressing the troublesome 
Year 2000 problem (Y2K). The supplemental appropriations bill marked up 
earlier this week by the Appropriations Committee includes $156 million 
for the Year 2000 problem. This amount reflects the FAA's two year 
needs for Y2K. However, I am concerned that the Congress will delay 
passage of this supplemental bill and the FAA will run out of money for 
Y2K. When will the FAA have exhausted all the existing authority for 
Y2K?
    Answer. As of today, the FAA will have committed all of the 
appropriated fiscal year 1998 Y2K funding.
    Question. The FAA has requested a reprogramming that includes $37.7 
million for the rest of fiscal year 1998 for addressing the troublesome 
Year 2000 problem (Y2K). The supplemental appropriations bill marked up 
earlier this week by the Appropriations Committee includes $156 million 
for the Year 2000 problem. This amount reflects the FAA's two year 
needs for Y2K. However, I am concerned that the Congress will delay 
passage of this supplemental bill and the FAA will run out of money for 
Y2K. What will happen if you do not receive the extra funds by then for 
Y2K?
    Answer. Without the reprogrammed funds, our ability to complete Y2K 
work on time will be seriously jeopardized. The FAA will continue to 
address Y2K activities, but we will be absorbing costs within programs 
where possible, and may well have to defer or eliminate additional 
activities to obtain sufficient funds to continue Y2K work.
    Question. The FAA has requested a reprogramming that includes $37.7 
million for the rest of fiscal year 1998 for addressing the troublesome 
Year 2000 problem (Y2K). The supplemental appropriations bill marked up 
earlier this week by the Appropriations Committee includes $156 million 
for the Year 2000 problem. This amount reflects the FAA's two year 
needs for Y2K. However, I am concerned that the Congress will delay 
passage of this supplemental bill and the FAA will run out of money for 
Y2K. In order to ensure that the Y2K project is not delayed, would you 
recommend that we approve the reprogramming request as soon as 
possible, but direct the FAA to reconcile the funds if and when the 
supplemental appropriations bill including additional Y2K funding 
passes?
    Answer. We strongly recommend that the reprogramming request be 
approved as soon as possible. Should the supplemental appropriations 
bill be passed, we will work with Congress to reconcile any 
differences.
                           faa controller pay
    Question. The FAA is currently negotiating with the National Air 
Traffic Controllers Association regarding controller pay and 
compensation, among other issues. However, the FAA has not requested 
any funding for controller pay increases in the 1999 budget request. 
Should we expect a request for a supplemental appropriation at the 
conclusion of negotiations, or will you absorb any increases in your 
enacted budget?
    Answer. The 1999 Budget assumes an across-the-board 3.1 percent pay 
increase effective January 1, 1999. If any cost increases beyond this 
budgeted amount result from the contract activities with the National 
Air Traffic Controllers Association contract, we will pursue funding 
them through cost savings offsets. It is the agency's intention that 
the new contract will be budget neutral.
                  new york terminal airspace redesign
    Question. The last major airspace redesign in the New York Terminal 
Area took effect in 1987 and 1988. Since then, traffic has grown and 
traffic flows have changed. As a result, the airspace desperately needs 
to be revamped. We must address the problems that have arisen at New 
York Terminal area airports--Newark, JFK, and LaGuardia--which continue 
to be among the worst airports in the country for delays.
    What do you plan to do in fiscal year 1999 to improve the capacity 
of the airspace in the New York Terminal Area?
    Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration has met with a number 
of groups, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, to 
scope the effort necessary to improve the New York Terminal Area. We 
see the need for an Eastern Triangle Airspace Redesign effort, which 
necessarily requires close coordination with the New York Terminal 
Airspace study being planned by the Port Authority. We have planned an 
initial kickoff meeting for a redesign effort, to include customers and 
stakeholders in the New York area, for May. The effort will involve FAA 
and industry members in joint identification of problems and solutions.
    Question. What new equipment are you committed to installing at 
Newark to increase the airport arrival rate in both good and bad 
weather conditions and when is this equipment expected to be installed?
    Answer. The most immediate improvement is the new Airport 
Surveillance Radar Model 9 (ASR-9) radar which was commissioned on 
April 16. This new radar provides improved radar surveillance data to 
New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) for input into the 
Converging Runway Display Aid/Controller Automated Spacing Aid (CRDA/
CASA) software which will enable the Newark controllers to 
simultaneously utilize the Runways 22 and Runway 11 for arrivals. CRDA/
CASA and the accompanying runway 11 final vector position at New York 
TRACON are scheduled to be implemented on June 26.
    The Airport Surface Detection Equipment III is expected to be 
installed in November 1998. This will provide improved capability to 
move aircraft safely and efficiently on the airport surface.
    Although at a different airport, the new instrument landing system 
(ILS) for Runway 19 at Teterboro is scheduled for commissioning in mid-
September of this year. This system removes a major conflict point for 
traffic arriving on the Runways 22 at Newark.
    We are working in partnership with the Port Authority of New York 
and New Jersey to implement the Integrated Terminal Weather System 
(ITWS) at Newark and all of the New York metropolitan air traffic 
control (ATC) facilities. This system will enable us to do much more 
accurate strategic planning of arrival and departure traffic based on 
weather trends and conditions.
    As a sub-task to the National Airspace Redesign, the Eastern Region 
Air Traffic Division is planning to facilitate a workgroup of Newark 
users and ATC staff to look at short-term and long-term solutions for 
optimizing arrival rates at Newark. The Eastern Region Air Traffic 
Division is finalizing plans to install an instrument landing system on 
Runway 22R for those times when a redundant system is needed or when 
parallel approaches to Runways 22R and 22L can be utilized. The long-
range plan is to utilize offset localizers for Runways 4L and 22R for 
simultaneous approaches in visual conditions. We are currently 
reviewing a proposal from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 
on this subject.
    Question. What is the status of the new air traffic control tower 
construction at Newark?
    Answer. Our current schedule for the Newark Tower is listed below. 
Design engineering is on schedule and should be completed this fall.
    Design Engineering--11/97 to 10/98.
    Construction Contract Procurement--10/98 to 3/99.
    Plant Construction--3/99 to 4/01.
    FAA Installation--4/01 to 3/02.
    Commissioning--3/02.
    Question. Are there any side projects which should be undertaken in 
conjunction with the new tower construction? Are they fully funded?
    Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration will commission a new 
Airport Surveillance Radar Model 9 (ASR-9) radar at Newark, New Jersey, 
in April 1998. After commissioning, the radar coverage of western New 
Jersey will be evaluated.
    If there is insufficient radar coverage in western New Jersey, an 
additional radar sensor will be requested. This additional radar sensor 
has not been funded.
 air traffic control delays and risks during severe weather in the new 
                          jersey/new york area
    Question. Airports in the New York/New Jersey area suffer from an 
incredible number of air traffic delays, especially when operating 
under severe weather conditions during the summer. Under those 
conditions, delays have increased by as much as 50 percent. We need 
more updated equipment in New Jersey and New York. In fact, just last 
month at Newark, a near-miss occurred on the runway that could have 
been prevented had the FAA been on schedule for installing upgraded 
Airport Surface Detection Equipment III. This upgraded equipment was 
supposed to be in place by November 1996. In addition, installation of 
individual Terminal Doppler Weather Radar units for JFK and LaGuardia 
is long overdue. Finally, the problem of outdated equipment is 
aggravated by the fact that the New York Center chronically suffers 
from staff shortages.
    What are you doing to address these problems, reduce delays, and 
improve safety during severe weather in the New Jersey/New York area?
    Answer. The Airport Surface Detection Equipment III is scheduled to 
be operational at Newark in November 1998. The Terminal Doppler Weather 
Radar (TDWR) which will serve LaGuardia and Kennedy airports has been 
delayed due to community and congressional concerns and, as a result, 
has no scheduled installation date. The TDWR for Newark is operational 
and working well.
    The identification and installation of appropriate weather 
reporting equipment has been the number one priority towards the 
reduction of delays and improving safety during severe weather events. 
The Integrated Terminal Weather System will be installed by Lincoln 
Labs/Massachusetts Institute of Technology and operational by August 
1998. This system will be installed in all New York area facilities.
    We anticipate that the implementation of the Departure Spacing 
Program (DSP) in the New York area facilities will enhance 
communications between facilities during severe weather conditions and, 
as a result, will contribute to improved efficiency and delay 
reduction. May 14 is the target date for implementing this important 
communication tool in the New York area facilities.
    Additionally the Weather Services Inc. Weather Display system is 
operational in the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON), 
as well as the weather and radar processor weather system in New York 
Center.
    Staffing at all of the New York area facilities is currently 
stabilized at a level much higher than last year. This increased 
staffing level includes controllers, operational supervisors, and 
traffic management coordinators. The traffic management coordinators 
have the responsibility for strategic planning of arrival and departure 
traffic flows, and are especially valuable during severe weather 
conditions.
    Staffing at the New York Center has been substantially increased 
and our preliminary figures indicate that we have 350 air traffic 
control specialist onboard as of March 31. This is 11 above the fiscal 
year 1998 year end goal of 339 as provided in the National Air Traffic 
Controller Association/FAA memorandum of understanding.
    Question. In light of air traffic controller summer work and 
training requirements, are staffing levels and overtime funds adequate 
to ensure air traffic control system efficiency during the peak summer 
travel months?
    Answer. We met or exceeded our fiscal year 1997 staffing 
requirements for the New York Center, New York Terminal Radar Approach 
Control (TRACON), Kennedy Tower, LaGuardia Tower, and Newark Tower. Our 
staffing plan for fiscal year 1998 projects that staffing goals will 
again be met or exceeded. Through assertive management of resources in 
the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, the Eastern Region Air Traffic 
Division was able to show a 14 percent reduction in overtime usage over 
the first quarter fiscal year 1997. This resulted in a savings of 
$173,619. This first quarter reduction translates to more funding for 
the busy summer travel season. Therefore, we do not anticipate any 
problems during the peak summer travel months.
                           itws installation
    Question. When will the FAA's Integrated Terminal Weather System be 
installed in the New Jersey/New York area?
    Answer. The FAA and New York and New Jersey Port Authority 
Memorandum of Agreement was finalized in March 1998. The Integrated 
Terminal Weather System (ITWS) prototype installation will be performed 
in two phases. Phase 1 will be completed by the end of April 1998 and 
will involve the installation and testing of radar interfaces, the 
computer networks, and the cabling necessary to create the 
infrastructure for the ITWS functional prototype. Phase 2 will involve 
the installation of the ITWS prototype situation displays and will be 
operational in August 1998.
    The production ITWS is scheduled for delivery to the New Jersey/New 
York area by January 2001, and will become operational six months after 
installation.
    Question. When will the New York Center ``Departure Pit'' be fully 
automated, including a two-way interface with the center host computer, 
which will enable the FAA to rapidly update multiple aircraft future 
plans?
    Answer. The Departure Spacing Program (DSP) is scheduled to be 
operational on May 14. The contractor has advised that six months after 
installation of the initial DSP system, the capability for two-way 
interface with the center host computer will be available. The 
requirements for the ``Pit'' automation will continue to evolve toward 
our end goal of full automation.
                         doppler weather radar
    Question. When will the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar be installed 
for JFK and LaGuardia?
    Answer. The FAA is currently conducting the environmental impact 
statement (EIS) process for installation of the Terminal Doppler 
Weather Radar to serve John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia 
airports. The EIS process will be completed by issuing a final EIS and 
a record of decision in fall 1998. The FAA anticipates commencing 
construction in winter 1998 and the commissioning in summer 1999.
    It is important to note that if any site other than the current 
preferred site is selected, additional public hearings would be 
required.
           new york/new jersey terminal doppler weather radar
    Question. Will there be only one system allocated for both JFK and 
LaGuardia?
    Answer. Following congressional direction, there is only one 
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar system allocated to serve both John F. 
Kennedy International and LaGuardia Airports.
                   modernizing the nation's airports
    The FAA has developed a plan for modernizing the Nation's airports 
by deploying new technologies designed to increase airspace and airport 
capacity and to reduce air traffic control delays. This plan should 
target deployment of these technologies in airports and areas with the 
greatest number of delays.
    Question. How does the schedule for deploying some of these new 
technologies in the New Jersey/New York area compare to the schedule 
for other areas of the country which suffer from fewer delays?
    Answer. A draft plan is being developed by the FAA which considers 
the early implementation of Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool for 
airports in the New Jersey/New York area. This plan includes John F. 
Kennedy International, Newark, LaGuardia, and Philadelphia. 
Additionally, Surface Movement Advisor is being planned for a number of 
airports in the area which includes Newark, Philadelphia, and 
Teterboro. The Air Traffic Control Centers for Phase 1 of the Free 
Flight program were chosen based on the requests of aviation industry 
representatives who targeted areas that were best for early deployment 
to reduce risk and speed the process for national deployment. The area 
delay frequency factor was left to the industry site selectors. This 
limited deployment is heavily dependent upon the cooperation of the 
airlines and is necessary to capture and improve on the benefits of 
Free Flight. Other factors were also considered which included airspace 
location and design, current prototype deployment and facilability.
                            doppler weather
    Question. What impediments are there to bringing these technologies 
to New Jersey and New York and what steps are being taken to overcome 
them?
    Answer. There are no impediments to bringing these technologies, 
passive final approach spacing tool (pFAST) to New Jersey and New York. 
They will be implemented after the Free Flight Phase 1 core capability 
limited deployment is complete and benefits are demonstrated.
           new technologies for the new york/new jersey area
    Question. What new technologies designed to increase capacity and 
reduce air traffic control delays associated with Free Flight Phase 1 
and the proposed NAS Architecture are programmed to be deployed in the 
New York/New Jersey area and when?
    Answer. Before the new technology can be deployed, a basic 
infrastructure must be in place. This infrastructure include the 
Display System Replacement and the HOST replacement in the New York/New 
Jersey en route areas by the year 2000. This infrastructure is 
necessary to implement the new technologies, which include the limited 
Free Flight Phase 1 core capabilities, necessary to increase capacity 
for the expected traffic growth without incurring safety degradation or 
increased delays.
    A draft plan for implementing these Free Flight Phase 1 core 
capabilities are being considered for the New York/New Jersey area 
starting with a limited version of the Surface Movement Advisor in 
Philadelphia in 1998 and an improved version at Newark and Teterboro in 
2001.
          new york tracon traffic management advisor software
    Question. How long will it take to modify the Traffic Management 
Advisor software to operate in a multi-center environment like the 
automation environment at the New York TRACON?
    Answer. Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) software development for 
the New York area would require: (1) an effort to identify the 
specific, detailed automation requirements for the region, and (2) a 
subsequent effort to develop and validate algorithms which meet these 
requirements. TMA multi-center development is presently a joint FAA/
NASA activity, with the necessary research being accomplished under the 
NASA Advanced Air Traffic Technology (AATT) program. The present NASA 
AATT program approach calls for a level of effort applied to New York 
area requirements definition from 1998 through 2000, with development 
of prototype software planned to begin in 2001. Prototype software 
development would require an additional 18 months. This would result in 
a prototype capability in the New York area during late 2002 or early 
2003.
     deployment of new technologies in the new jersey/new york area
    Question. What would it cost and how long would it take to transfer 
adjacent en route airspace responsibility to New York Center so that 
all Free Flight Phase I core technologies could be deployed in the New 
York area?
    Answer. Free Flight Phase I (FFPI) Core technologies are primarily 
single airport/terminal area specific. The current state of the 
technology development places constraints on site selection for 
implementation. A major Eastern Triangle Airspace Redesign goal, in 
support of FFPI, is to define a more efficient airspace architecture 
between multiple terminals and en route center airspace as a prelude to 
future Free Flight technology requirements. Analysis may justify moving 
airspace boundaries but modeling and analysis for best efficiency will 
drive recommended boundary changes. Cost, schedule, and risk will have 
to be an integral part of airspace redesign program management and each 
will be determined by the principles of redesign analysis.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Mikulski
               tower replacement at martin state airport
    Question. Last year, the Appropriations Committee directed the FAA 
to begin replacement of the control tower at Martin State Airport 
located in Baltimore County, Maryland. However, no action has been 
taken to begin replacement of a new tower. What is the status of the 
control tower replacement at Martin State Airport and when will 
Construction begin?
    Answer. Senate report 105-55 directed the FAA to use fiscal year 
1998 funds to replace Martin State tower and added $3.0 million. 
However, congressional conferees subsequently eliminated the $3.0 
million earmark for Martin State Airport. No action has been initiated 
to begin replacement of the Martin State tower, as Martin State does 
not meet the benefit/cost criteria for replacement.
                          tall tower exemption
    Question. As you know, the Federal Communications Commission is 
proposing a rule that would pre-empt state laws and local zoning and 
land use restrictions on the siting and construction of broadcast 
station transmission facilities, or so-called ``tall towers.''
    The Wisconsin Department of Transportation, airport managers and 
local government groups have raised red flags, claiming that pre-
empting local zoning protections could jeopardize the safe and 
efficient operation of airports.
    I understand the FAA has expressed concerns about pre-empting 
existing placement restrictions. What are those concerns, and what 
solutions might you suggest to balance our pursuit of an improved 
communications network with public safety and the need to maintain an 
appropriate level of local input?
    Answer. The FAA is concerned that the Federal Communications 
Commission's (FCC's) proposed rule might result in the construction of 
structures that would adversely affect both the safety and the 
efficiency of our air transportation system.
    Congress has charged the FAA with the duty to provide a safe and 
efficient air transportation system. This mandate requires the Federal 
Aviation Administrator to develop plans and policy for the use of 
navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the 
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and efficient use 
of airspace.
    Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations addresses the 
construction of objects that may affect the navigable airspace and sets 
forth the standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace. 
These standards form the basis for the FAA to issue advisory 
determinations as to whether a proposed structure would result in a 
hazard to navigable airspace. Part 77 also contains notice requirements 
for certain proposed construction or alterations of structures. Failure 
to submit notice to the FAA can result in a civil penalty. However, 
since the FAA's determination is advisory in nature, a disregard of the 
determination by a proponent is not a basis for action by the FAA. The 
hazardous structure can therefore be legally built. Historically, state 
and local governments often enact laws and ordinances that prohibit the 
construction of structures that have been determined by the FAA to 
constitute a hazard to air navigation.
    Without the involvement of these governments, hazardous structures 
might have been built with a resulting serious degradation of air 
safety and efficiency. State and local governments have proved to be 
valuable partners in the quest for a safe aviation environment. Under 
the FCC's proposed rule, state and local governments may be deprived of 
sufficient time to address a proponent's request for construction 
authority. The terms of the proposed rule would allow the FCC to pre-
empt the state or local government that could potentially result in the 
construction of structures that adversely affects both the safety and 
efficiency of our air transportation system.
    The FAA has commented on the FCC's proposal and requested an 
amendment to the proposed rule. The proposed amendment would require 
that the FCC grant state and local laws, ordinances or regulations a 
presumption of validity as having been passed in deference to FAA 
concerns. Additionally, the FAA requested that the FCC not adopt any 
time limitations for the decisions by state and local governments in 
areas that are subject to the FAA's safety jurisdiction. Most 
importantly, the FAA requested that the FCC continue its practice of 
giving continued deference to the FAA's Part 77 regulations and 
determinations.
    The FAA believes that the adoption of these requests will allow the 
FCC to carry out its congressional mandate of providing for the rapid 
implementation of digital television while concurrently fostering 
continued aviation safety.
                                 ______
                                 
                            U.S. Coast Guard
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
   deepwater capability replacement analysis fiscal year 1999 funding
    Question. There is $28 million in the Acquisition, Construction, 
and Improvements (AC&I) budget for the Deepwater project. Last year, we 
appropriated more than was requested for the AC&I budget in an effort 
to reduce the demands on that account as the Deepwater project elements 
became bigger factors in the AC&I account. What will be done with that 
$28 million in fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. The Deepwater fiscal year 1999 funding is to continue 
industry studies begun in fiscal year 1998 to develop Integrated 
Deepwater System Concepts. Funding for the Project is as follows:

Industry Contract Options (3 @ $6,000,000)..............     $18,000,000
Independent Analysis Government Contract (1 @ 
    $4,000,000).........................................       4,000,000
Trade-off Analyses, Technology Assessments, Modeling and 
    Simulation, RFP Preparation, Contract Quality 
    Assurance, Independent Validation and Verification 
    (IV&V), Additional Studies..........................       4,500,000
Project Administration..................................       1,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      28,000,000
           deepwater capability replacement analysis funding
    Question. How much more could you spend on Deepwater in 1999 if the 
Committee were able to identify additional resources?
    Answer. The $28 million requested is adequate to begin the 
Deepwater Capability Replacement Analysis. The Coast Guard is not 
seeking additional funding in fiscal year 1999.
                       station mobile replacement
    Question. There is a small Coast Guard station in Mobile, Alabama. 
I understand that there was an anticipated relocation and construction 
of new facilities for that station on some Coast Guard-owned property 
at Dauphin Island for a search and rescue detachment. Resources for 
that relocation and construction are not in the President's budget 
request. I further understand that one of the benefits of combining 
facilities at Dauphin Island is a reduction in operating and 
maintenance costs. Is my understanding of this issue accurate? Was that 
money in your request to the Office of the Secretary (OST) and in the 
Department's request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?
    Answer. Operating and maintenance costs will be reduced because the 
Coast Guard will operate a single Station on Dauphin Island, instead of 
operating a Station in Mobile and a separate detachment on Dauphin 
Island during the summer boating season.
    Funding for this project was not included in the Coast Guard's 
fiscal year 1999 requests to OST and OMB.
                           deepwater program
    Question. The Coast Guard received $5 million for the Deepwater 
program in fiscal year 1998, and this year's budget request includes 
$28 million for this program. While I support Coast Guard efforts to 
modernize its fleet, I am concerned that the program is not well 
defined. We do not know the total expected cost. We do not know what 
the ultimate mix of cutters and aircraft will be. We do not know the 
period of time over which the modernization will occur. What will $28 
million dollars requested ``buy'' for the Coast Guard in fiscal year 
1999?
    Answer. The Deepwater fiscal year 1999 funding is to continue 
industry studies begun in fiscal year 1998 to develop Integrated 
Deepwater System Concepts. Funding for the project is as follows:

Industry Contract Options (3 @ $6,000,000)..............     $18,000,000
Independent Analysis Government Contract (1 @ 
    $4,000,000).........................................       4,000,000
Trade-off Analyses, Technology Assessments, Modeling and 
    Simulation, RFP Preparation, Contract Quality 
    Assurance, Independent Validation and Verification 
    (IV&V), Additional Studies..........................       4,500,000
Project Administration..................................       1,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      28,000,000
        deepwater capability replacement analysis future funding
    Question. What funding needs do you anticipate for this program in 
future years?
    Answer. The estimated project future funding needs will be 
determined at the completion of the analysis phase. The Coast Guard has 
provided industry a notional cost and time period as an initial upper 
bound to develop and deliver an Integrated Deepwater System. This cost/
schedule will be used for initial budget planning and to assist in 
evaluating industry proposals.
                      container inspection program
    Question. What assurances can you provide that your proposed cuts 
will not result in increased risk to our ports and waterways from 
improperly, or illegally, transported hazardous materials.
    Answer. The proposed Container Inspection Program (CIP) reductions 
streamline Headquarters and training overhead and realign some 
dedicated field inspectors to focus on the areas of highest risk. While 
some field inspector billets were scaled back, the refocused program 
will still allow the Coast Guard to provide for public safety and 
environmental protection.
    The CIP, which began in 1994, has matured sufficiently to shift 
from central headquarters management to field-level compliance 
activity, with operational tempo based on risk assessments. Dedicated 
field resources will be realigned to focus on the ports with the 
highest container throughput and on those hazardous material containers 
posing the greatest transportation risk. The Coast Guard will still 
maintain a Container Inspection Training and Assist Team to train field 
inspectors.
    The Coast Guard recently published guidance for ensuring compliance 
with Cargo Securing Manual standards. A new guide for blocking and 
bracing packaged hazardous materials is being jointly developed with 
the Institute of Packaging Professionals. The Coast Guard plans to 
publish new field guidance for developing a risk-based maritime 
hazardous material container selection strategy.
                         user fee justification
    Question. The Coast Guard budget includes the expected collection 
of aids-to-navigation and icebreaking user fees on commercial cargo 
carriers in fiscal year 1999. The collection amount is projected to 
increase to $165 million each year when fully implemented.
    $165 million annually in new user fees is a significant amount of 
money to extract from any one industry. First, at a time when our books 
are balanced and we are running a budget surplus, what is the 
justification behind these fees? Second, has the Coast Guard or the 
Administration examined or performed an assessment of the impact of 
these user fees on American exporters, especially bulk exporters, where 
just fractions of a cost increase can have a negative impact? If yes, 
what were the conclusions of that examination?
    Answer. Commercial vessel operators benefit greatly from Coast 
Guard navigational services, which include buoy tending, vessel traffic 
management, and radionavigation, but pay almost nothing for them. 
Likewise, Coast Guard domestic icebreaking saves industry tens of 
millions of dollars annually in stockpiling costs by allowing them to 
ship commodities virtually year round.
    The user pays principle is applied throughout the transportation 
world: to finance highways, air traffic control and airport 
improvements, and even Army Corps of Engineers dredging and lock 
operations. User fees may be a critical means in the future for 
ensuring that the Coast Guard has adequate resources to meet its 
operating and capital needs without significantly reducing other 
transportation programs.
    Many other countries, including Canada, charge user fees for Coast 
Guard services.
    The Coast Guard has not performed an economic impact assessment; 
however, such an analysis would be performed as part of the regulatory 
evaluation process.
                      great lakes icebreaker study
    Question. In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $2 million for 
the Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw replacement study. What is the status 
of this study and the Coast Guard's current time frame for a new 
icebreaker for the Great Lakes?
    Answer. The required interim status report on concept exploration 
was transmitted on June 25, 1988. The Administration has not requested 
continued funding for this project.
                          mackinaw replacement
    Question. I have noted that there are no funds in the President's 
fiscal year 1999 request for the Mackinaw replacement effort. What are 
the consequences of not continuing the funding stream for this 
important Great Lakes priority in the approaching fiscal year? Would 
the replacement effort move more expeditiously if Congress chose to 
appropriate funds for the project? Would the project be advanced by one 
year, two years, if funding was provided, and if yes, what level of 
funding would be appropriate?
    Answer. The Administration is currently reviewing alternatives. No 
decision to build has been made at this time.
                    importance of deepwater program
    Question. Just how important is the Deepwater Program to the 
country and the Coast Guard? Do you see any alternative to replacing 
the Coast Guard's deepwater assets in the early part of the next 
century? Lastly, I understand the Coast Guard already has substantially 
more work in the deepwater missions than it can handle with its current 
assets--is this accurate and how do you propose to deal with this level 
of demand? What would a delay in the Deepwater Project mean to the 
ability of the Coast Guard to perform its mission?
    Answer. The Deepwater Program is extremely important to the country 
and the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's maritime law enforcement, 
maritime safety, and marine environmental protection missions are all 
executed in the deepwater environment. The illegal drugs seized or 
deterred from entering our country, the lives and property saved at 
sea, and the preservation of U.S. fisheries stocks from illegal 
harvesting directly contribute to the Coast Guard's performance goals 
of providing the country a safe and secure maritime border. 
Additionally, in executing the Coast Guard's responsibilities under the 
President's National Security Strategy, partnerships are built with 
other nations' forces that will increase world stability.
    The Coast Guard is exploring all alternatives. Under consideration 
are extension of operations of current assets, modernization of current 
assets, and investments in U.S. Navy retired ships, in addition to 
replacement of assets.
    To execute the Coast Guard's responsibilities under the President's 
10-year drug control strategy, more cutters and aircraft are needed. 
Additionally, as the world's fish stocks become more scarce, the Coast 
Guard will have to pay more attention to protecting the U.S. fish 
stocks in the central Pacific from foreign poaching. The Coast Guard's 
Office of National Drug Control Policy certified budget contains 
requests for more cutters and aircraft plus the support necessary to 
properly operate them. A major premise of the Deepwater Program is that 
a new, fully integrated systems approach would lead to ships, aircraft, 
sensors, and command and control links with different characteristics 
than today's cutters and aircraft that could accomplish the Coast 
Guard's missions more effectively and economically.
    A delay in the Deepwater Project would result in continued 
increased costs for the Coast Guard in maintenance and personnel, with 
continued limited mission capabilities.
              anticipated savings through fiscal year 2002
    Question. Please indicate the anticipated annual savings through 
fiscal year 2002 that the Coast Guard has underway.
    Answer. During the period 1994-1998, the Coast Guard saved the 
American taxpayer more than $400 million in gross programmatic 
reductions. Of this amount, nearly $78 million in net annual savings 
were attributable to the Coast Guard generated National Streamlining 
Plan, which included closing Governor's Island.
    The President's fiscal year 1999 budget states ``As part of a 
continuing effort to streamline the Coast Guard, the 1999 Budget 
assumes facility closures and other streamlining that will yield over 
$20 million in annual savings by 2001.'' The following fiscal year 1999 
budget initiatives will contribute to this effort. Actual savings may 
vary due to several factors (i.e., lower than anticipated Acquisition, 
Construction, and Improvements Appropriation funding levels may delay 
project completion), but should exceed $20 million by 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Net recurring
        Fiscal year 1999 initiative              operating      Savings
                                             expenses savings     year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of one time costs/annualization       -$8,000,000       1999
 of prior-year efficiencies................
Optimize Coast Guard Training                      -9,000,000       2002
 Infrastructure............................
Operational Adjustments....................        -7,000,000       1999
Reduce Seagoing and Coastal Buoy Tender           -14,000,000    ( \1\ )
 Fleet Size from 37 to 30..................
Finance Center Computer Savings............          -900,000       1999
LORAN-C Consolidated Control...............        -1,500,000       1999
Fleet Logistics Savings....................        -1,500,000       1999
270-Foot Command and Control Savings.......          -500,000       1999
Restructure Aviation Workforce.............          -300,000       1999
HC-130 Engine Conversion Savings...........          -300,000       1999
Air Station Atlantic City Consolidation....          -500,000       1999
Close Air Facility Long Island.............        -1,500,000       1999
Relocate Air Facility Glenview, IL.........          -300,000       1999
GSA Rent Reduction.........................        -3,300,000       1999
Military Personnel Management Efficiencies.        -6,000,000       2000
Federal Workforce Act Completion...........          -500,000       1999
Military to Civilian Conversion............          -750,000       1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pends AC&I funding levels.

                 additional cost cutting opportunities
    Question. What additional cost-cutting opportunities (e.g., 
civilian/military mix, rotation policy, etc.) are available to the 
Coast Guard?
    Answer. It is premature to discuss further Coast Guard cost-cutting 
options that may be included in the President's outyear budgets as they 
are pre-decisional and have not been fully evaluated, nor approved, by 
the Administration. The Coast Guard continuously strives to identify 
efficiencies that will keep it a model of good government and an 
outstanding investment for the American taxpayer. During the period 
1994-1998, through various streamlining initiatives and management 
efficiencies, the Coast Guard saved the American taxpayer more than 
$400 million in gross reductions. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 
budget identifies initiatives that will yield more than $20 million in 
reductions by fiscal year 2001. Strategic investment in modern capital 
equipment and technology, such as the Deepwater Replacement Project, 
are critical to the Coast Guard's ability to continue to identify 
efficiencies, while delivering the services expected by the American 
people.
        base closure and realignment commission for coast guard
    Question. Do you believe that it would be useful to establish a 
Base Closure and Realignment Commission to review potential closure of 
Coast Guard facilities?
    Answer. The Coast Guard does not believe that it would be useful to 
establish a Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission to review 
potential closure of Coast Guard facilities at this time.
    The Coast Guard is completing its largest streamlining effort in 
history. The impact of a BRAC process so soon after our own 
streamlining process may cause a negative effect on the men and women 
of our small service, including low morale and the administrative 
burden (increased workload) accompanying a BRAC process. The Coast 
Guard needs time to adjust to the larger changes of the past three 
years. The Coast Guard remains committed to a continual evaluation of 
divestitures and will continue to work at finding ways to reduce 
unnecessary shore facility inventory.
                 proceeds from sale of surplus property
    Question. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1998 budget request for its 
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) account included an 
expected $9 million from the sale of surplus Coast Guard properties. In 
developing its budget, the Coast Guard presented the Office of 
Management and Budget with a list of 29 properties that the Coast Guard 
expected to be surplus in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.
    What properties were actually sold and how much did the Coast Guard 
raise?
    Answer. To date in 1998, the Coast Guard received proceeds of 
$1,981,415 from the sale of four properties in Greenville, MS; Redmond, 
WA; Owensboro, KY; and Coinjock, NC. None of these properties were on 
the original list of 29 properties.
          potential to use surplus property sales to fund ac&i
    Question. What is the potential for selling more surplus property 
to help pay for the Coast Guard's AC&I needs?
    Answer. The potential to use the sale of surplus property to help 
pay for the Coast Guard's Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 
(AC&I) needs is limited. Whenever property is reported as excess to the 
General Services Administration, it must first be determined to be 
excess to the Coast Guard's needs. This does not necessarily mean that 
the property is available for sale or that the estimated value will be 
realized if and when a sale occurs. There are a number of factors that 
make it difficult to accurately predict the actual proceeds from future 
sale of assets. These include the speculative nature of the market 
value of government property, delays in the timing of the sale, the 
possibility of legislative transfer, historic or environmental 
restrictions on reuse, and no-cost transfer to another Federal agency 
or homeless interest (which is Federally mandated). Most of these items 
relate to circumstances outside of the Coast Guard's control.
       report to congress on coast guard's high value properties
    Question. Please provide the list requested in the fiscal year 1998 
Appropriations Act of Coast Guard high value properties.
    Answer. The Coast Guard's report, as requested in Senate Report 
105-55, is being reviewed within the Coast Guard. It will be forwarded 
for final Administration clearance and submitted to Congress by March 
1998.
                         military/civilian mix
    Question. The Coast Guard's current policy is to maintain a work 
force mix which will maximize its ability to accomplish its missions in 
the most cost effective manner. The Coast Guard's staffing policy 
provides a framework for determining whether positions should be filled 
by military or civilian personnel. This framework presupposes all 
positions to be civilian unless established criteria indicate military 
classification is more appropriate. In fiscal year 1997, the Coast 
Guard had about 37,000 military personnel and about 6,000 civilian 
personnel. Some past studies have suggested that more Coast Guard 
personnel should be civilian. One advantage is cost. Overall, the Coast 
Guard has estimated that it costs 16.25 percent more to compensate a 
military member than a civilian member. A recent General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report estimated that the Department of Defense could save 
about $15,000 for every military position it reprogrammed to civilian.
    The Coast Guard maintains that military personnel provide a more 
front-line, rapid response capability in the operational environment 
than do civilian personnel. They also point out that government-wide 
mandates currently require them to reduce, not increase, the civilian 
workforce. However, in 1994, the Coast Guard initiated a comprehensive 
review to determine what military positions agency-wide should be 
reprogrammed to civilian positions. The review was to be completed in 
1997.
    Has the study been completed?
    Answer. Yes, the study has been completed. The initial study, 
``Report to Congress on Civilians in Personnel Management Structure,'' 
was submitted by the Coast Guard to the Congress on June 26, 1997. The 
review of military billets was completed in December 1997.
                             study results
    Question. If completed, what were the results of the study?
    Answer. The study reviewed 35,000 military billets. Approximately 
535 military billets were found to meet the definition of ``non-
military essential.''
    Due to civilian position classification and conversion concerns, a 
random sample of 53 non-military essential billets were classified 
using Office of Personnel Management guidelines and actual position 
descriptions. A majority of the billets would convert to civilian 
grades that classify higher than indicated by a 1994 General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report; and the resulting savings would be considerably 
less. On average, the savings were found to be about $3,000 per 
conversion.
    Lastly, not every ``non-military essential'' conversion saves 
money, particularly at the junior enlisted and the junior officer 
paygrades. In some cases, conversion to a civilian position would 
actually cost the Coast Guard over $8,000 per year per position. 
Clearly, not every conversion is cost effective.
                   implementation of recommendations
    Question. What actions has the Coast Guard taken or planned as a 
result of the study?
    Answer. To date, the Coast Guard has converted over 140 non-
military essential billets into civilian positions, with a goal of 213 
conversions during fiscal year 1999, as proposed in the fiscal year 
1999 justifications. The Coast Guard remains committed to using 
personnel resources in the most efficient manner. The Coast Guard will 
continue to implement conversions that enhance mission support and make 
good business sense.
                     conversion of military billets
    Question. What are the anticipated dollar savings as the result of 
any actions taken or planned?
    Answer. The Coast Guard will save $750,000 from converting military 
billets to civilian positions as shown in the fiscal year 1999 budget 
request at page OE-REQ-33.
                           rotation policies
    Question. The Coast Guard's current policy is to periodically 
rotate all but a few of its military personnel, both officer and 
enlisted. Officer rotations vary from 18 months to five years, enlisted 
rotations vary from two to four years. Annual costs to rotate staff 
average about $60 million; other costs are incurred for moving time and 
preparing over 19,000 orders annually. Some studies have questioned 
whether the Coast Guard should revise rotation practices by increasing 
the length of time between rotations and/or eliminating rotations for 
certain types of activities. Besides saving money, such a change could 
counter a problem pointed out in several studies--the undesirable 
effects of frequent rotation on the continuity of operations and 
ability to build expertise and knowledge in certain areas.
    Coast Guard officials believe that the current rotation policies 
are adequate and that they have developed optimum tour lengths that 
should not be revised. They said that changing current practices would 
have several undesirable effects, including adverse effects on 
multimission capabilities, a smaller and less qualified leadership 
pool, and less qualified people because potential recruits may be 
concerned about being in undesirable locations for extended periods. 
The Coast Guard currently plans no formal study of this issue.
    What was the actual annual cost in fiscal year 1997 to rotate Coast 
Guard military personnel, including moving expenses, idle time, 
paperwork, and training?
    Answer. Relocation costs were $59,454,000, as shown on page OE-PPA-
14 of the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 justifications. This includes 
moving persons, dependents, household goods, as well as dislocation 
allowances. There are no data systems to specifically gather the costs 
to rotate personnel associated with ``idle time, paperwork, or 
training.''
    Nearly 10,000 annual relocation orders, or 50 percent, are non-
discretionary, since they are issued to members who are retiring, 
separating from the service, or graduating from recruit or service 
training. The remaining 50 percent are actual duty station 
reassignments. However, approximately half of these remaining transfers 
are also considered non-discretionary, as they are to reassign members 
currently serving arduous duty (such as isolated duty and sea duty) 
assignments, in command positions, or that have recently been promoted. 
The remaining transfers provide the personnel necessary to replace 
those currently serving on arduous duty assignments, recently promoted, 
or separated from the service.
    When a military member is rotating, the time is categorized in one 
of three ways: (1) travel time; (2) proceed time; or (3) leave time. 
The first two are authorized in the Joint Federal Travel Regulations. 
The amount of travel time is based on the distance between the two duty 
stations and the mode of travel. Travel time is typically between one 
day and seven days. Proceed time is four days by law. Leave is an 
entitlement under 10 U.S. Code 40, and may be taken either at a 
member's duty station or en route to a new duty station.
                         rotation policy study
    Question. Does the Coast Guard still believe that an in-depth study 
of the merits of lengthening rotations is not needed given their high 
costs? If so, why?
    Answer. The Coast Guard formally examined its military rotation 
policies and associated transfer costs in 1993, 1995, and 1997. Current 
rotation policies have been developed in consideration of cost, mission 
requirements, the personal sacrifices made by Coast Guard members and 
their families, and the operational tempo of the various mission areas. 
The existing rotation and assignment framework provides flexibility to 
increase or decrease a member's tour length to balance cost, service 
need, and members' personal/professional needs and desires.
    The Coast Guard has more than 1,390 units located among all 50 
states in 228 congressional districts, in every territory, and in 
several foreign countries. The Coast Guard is founded on small, 
responsive units in operationally and geographically critical 
locations--which in turn drive transfer policies. A highly centralized 
organization such as seen at Navy homeports, Army depots, and Air Force 
bases, would require fewer geographic transfers, but also would not 
provide the expected service to the public.
    Like the other military services, the Coast Guard is a pyramid 
organization with a broad base of junior members. The operational 
experience and military specialty skills required of senior personnel 
must be gained from experience obtained in earlier tours of duty--the 
military ``grows from within.'' This is an essential characteristic of 
a military organization. Through training, and the wide experience base 
of Coast Guard personnel, the Coast Guard maintains a multimission 
capability to quickly and efficiently shift from one mission to the 
next without degradation in overall mission effectiveness.
    In addition to the 50 percent non-discretionary transfers described 
in response to the previous question, another 25 percent of the 
discretionary transfers are required, due to the remote location of the 
assignment, arduous nature of the assignment, or by special needs of 
the member or family. Remote location tours are those where the 
military member is unaccompanied by his or her family, such as 
assignment to one of three isolated LORAN stations in Alaska. Arduous 
tours of duty are those tours in which a member is subject to frequent 
immediate recall or subjected to harsh physical demands, such as 
assignment to one of the Coast Guard's 86 patrol boats. Lastly, special 
needs are created when a military member or immediate family member 
experiences a change in physical or emotional status requiring a move. 
For example, a special need arises when a spouse dies, creating a need 
to relocate a family closer to child care providers. Beyond these 
extraordinary assignments, more than 4,800 members are assigned to 
major cutters that deploy away from homeport more than 185 days per 
year. Rotational assignments provide these and other members an 
opportunity for greater family stability.
            military personnel tracking and payroll facility
    Question. Is it true the Coast Guard is now developing new software 
for its military payroll function and plans to eventually transfer this 
function from Topeka, Kansas, to its facility in Martinsburg, West 
Virginia?
    Answer. The Coast Guard is replacing the Military Personnel 
Tracking and Payroll System with a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) 
product as the core part of the system. Significant software 
development is necessary to allow the COTS product to issue proper 
payments under military pay rules. The Coast Guard does not have plans 
to move the Human Resources Service and Information Center or transfer 
the military payroll function to Martinsburg, WV. However, should any 
alternative prove less expensive and deliver an acceptable level of 
service, the Coast Guard will investigate any possible cost savings. 
The Coast Guard does plan to use the computer facilities in Martinsburg 
to host and operate the replacement Military Personnel Tracking and 
Payroll System on the computer system purchased under this replacement 
project.
            military personnel tracking and payroll savings
    Question. If so, what savings are anticipated and when will the 
change be made?
    Answer. As part of this initiative, the Coast Guard plans to remove 
115 military billets from Personnel Reporting Units. These reductions 
will begin in the last quarter of fiscal year 1999.
       noaa use of military personnel tracking and payroll system
    Question. We understand that the Coast Guard processes payroll 
checks for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) Officer Corps. Is this true? If true, what does the Coast Guard 
charge NOAA?
    Answer. Yes. The Coast Guard has a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) with NOAA to allow NOAA to use the Coast Guard Military Personnel 
Tracking and Payroll System. NOAA uses personnel tracking, military 
payroll, and retired payroll functions in the Coast Guard system. The 
MOU requires NOAA to reimburse the Coast Guard the cost of a GS-12 
position at approximately $60,000 annually for use of the system.
                         military payroll costs
    Question. If different than the $2.81 figure provided to this 
Subcommittee last year, please explain why? Aren't such charges subject 
to the provisions of the Economy Act?
    Answer. The fiscal year 1997 cost for a semimonthly payroll (two 
payments per month) was $3.57/month. The cost increase is primarily due 
to two factors. The first is a decreasing size of the active duty 
military workforce. The second reason is the evolution of an improved 
methodology with which we can more rigorously allocate overhead and 
other indirect costs.
    Since the Coast Guard has not outsourced its military payroll 
functions, the provisions of the Economy Act do not apply.
                   validated performance goal levels
    Question. The Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA) 
requires agencies to set strategic goals, measure performance, and 
report on the degree to which goals were met. Under GPRA, each agency 
was required to develop a strategic plan, by September 30, 1997, 
describing its mission, long-term goals and objectives, and strategies 
for achieving those goals and objectives. Each agency must also develop 
an annual performance plan, beginning with fiscal year 1999. The annual 
performance plan should contain annual performance goals to gauge the 
agency's progress toward accomplishing its longer term strategic goals 
and identify the performance measures the agency will use to assess its 
progress. The Coast Guard is one of the pilot agencies to test the 
implementation of GPRA. The Coast Guard developed performance plans for 
fiscal years 1997 and 1998. They describe the major outcomes (goals) of 
Coast Guard operations instead of describing them by individual 
programs. The major outcome areas are: safety, protection of natural 
resources, mobility, maritime security, and national defense. Each 
outcome has several performance goals and a measure or indicator 
associated with it. When fully implemented, the Coast Guard will link 
desired outcomes to its budget needs.
    How has the Coast Guard validated the performance goals as being 
set at the appropriate levels?
    Answer. Fiscal year 1999 performance goals were validated through 
the analysis of outcome and activity data collected over the past 
several years. Program managers used this data, along with their 
assessments of the impacts of future effectiveness and efficiency 
initiatives, to validate that performance goals were set at the 
appropriate levels. The Coast Guard will continue to improve its 
ability to validate goal levels as more data is collected and the 
relationship between activity levels and outcome levels is better 
understood.
                    reliable performance information
    Question. Over the years, the quality of Coast Guard management 
data has been questioned by GAO. How can the Coast Guard be certain 
that it will have reliable data to measure progress against the 
performance goals?
    Answer. The Coast Guard is addressing the specific shortcomings in 
data management noted by the General Accounting Office (GAO), and to 
improve overall data reliability. To this end, the Coast Guard is 
working to obtain the most accurate and useful data to measure its 
performance. Field personnel are routinely trained in the correct entry 
of safety data into information systems, and safety data regularly 
undergoes computer analysis for anomalies that may indicate data 
errors. Additionally, the Coast Guard is partnering with the Maritime 
Administration and Army Corps of Engineers to improve the collection 
and standardization of all waterborne trade data. The Coast Guard is 
developing new performance information systems to better manage data. 
The Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) System 
will replace obsolete and difficult to maintain software and hardware, 
and improve the timeliness and reliability of safety and law 
enforcement data.
                  challenges in performance management
    Question. What difficulties has the Coast Guard identified in 
developing its major outcomes, performance goals, and measures/
indicators?
    Answer. In developing its five strategic outcome goals, and 23 
performance measures, the Coast Guard has identified several challenges 
in implementing performance management. Most importantly, the Coast 
Guard must further develop performance measures, operational databases, 
financial systems, and analytical methodologies that demonstrate and 
quantify how resources and activities are linked to outcomes. The Coast 
Guard must also continue developing common, interagency goals for 
crosscutting outcome areas such as drug supply reduction and fisheries 
stock improvement. Finally, the heart of the Government Performance and 
Results Act (GPRA) is the use of performance results for active 
resource management. To accomplish this, the Coast Guard must continue 
developing a performance evaluation system that identifies which 
strategies and activities are most effective, which need improvement, 
and which require reallocating resources.
                           performance goals
    Question. Are the Coast Guard's performance goals based on its 
fiscal year 1999 budget request, or are they based on a higher resource 
level?
    Answer. Coast Guard performance goal levels are based on the fiscal 
year 1999 budget request.
                            resource levels
    Question. If they are based on a higher level, please explain.
    Answer. Coast Guard performance goal levels are based on the 
outcomes that can be achieved given the resource levels contained in 
the fiscal year 1999 budget request.
          acquisition, construction, and improvements staffing
    Question. Since fiscal year 1992, the Coast Guard's appropriations 
acts have identified a specific portion of its Acquisition, 
Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) funds to be used for related 
staffing costs. Generally, the AC&I fund is used to pay for the 
agency's major acquisitions, such as purchasing new vessels, aircraft, 
and facilities. Previously, GAO reported the Coast Guard was improperly 
using staff funded through its operating expenses (OE) for AC&I related 
activities. As a result, operating expenses funds for personnel were 
reduced by $4 million in 1994, while some funds were added to the AC&I 
personnel function. The Coast Guard said in an anti-deficiency act 
violation letter that it was developing procedures to make certain that 
AC&I funds are used properly. Has the Coast Guard taken actions and 
developed procedures to ensure that the AC&I account is properly 
charged for the costs of staff working on AC&I-related activities? If 
not, why is it taking so long?
    Answer. Yes. Interim policy and procedures entitled Criteria for 
Use in Determining Billet/Position Funding Source established the 
criteria now used to determine the funding source for personnel 
billets/positions to execute both Operating Expenses (OE) and AC&I 
funds. This policy was distributed to major Coast Guard commands 
responsible for carrying out AC&I-related work, and will be formally 
incorporated in the next change of the Financial Resources Management 
Manual (Commandant Instruction M7100.3A).
    The Coast Guard has also standardized its policy and procedures for 
calculating the direct salary and standard personnel support costs 
generated by its workforce. This ensures that the proper personnel 
support costs are charged to the cognizant appropriation and that no 
cross subsidizing of one appropriation by another can occur.
    Both of these actions will prevent similar recurrences of the 
improper funding of AC&I-related personnel costs by the OE 
appropriation documented in the fiscal year 1993 General Accounting 
Office report Acquisition Program Staff Were Funded Improperly. Since 
fiscal year 1994, standardized procedures to determine AC&I full time 
equivalent (FTE) levels and personnel costs have been followed and the 
AC&I appropriation has funded all AC&I specific personnel costs.
    The final solution will come when the Personnel Management 
Information System/Joint Uniform Military Pay System II (PMIS/JUMPS II) 
is implemented. PMIS/JUMPS II will allow direct charging of personnel 
salaries and benefits to the appropriate appropriation eliminating the 
need for refunds.
                          timetable for award
    Question. What is the timetable for award of the follow-on Seagoing 
Buoy Tender Replacement? How many vessels will the initial contract 
award be for? What is the total amount spent to date on this contract? 
How many vessels have been procured under the existing contract?
    Answer. The follow-on contract is scheduled for award during the 
fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998. The initial contract award will be 
for two ships with options for nine additional ships totaling eleven 
ships. The follow-on contract has not been awarded, therefore, no funds 
have been spent on this contract. On the existing contract, $162.9 
million has been spent to date. Five vessels have been awarded under 
the existing contract. Three ships have been delivered, and two are 
still under construction.
             national distress system modernization project
    Question. What is the budget request for fiscal year 1999 for the 
National Distress System Modernization Project (NDSMP)? What does the 
most recent Coast Guard Capital Investment Plan include for the NDSMP?
    Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget requests $3 million for NDSMP.
    The fiscal year 1998 Capital Investment Plan (CIP), signed December 
12, 1996, shows the ``Total Acquisition Costs'' for the project at $65 
million to $100 million.
        relationship between the coast guard cip and the budget
    Question. What is the relationship between the Capital Investment 
Plan (CIP) and the Coast Guard budget request for any given fiscal 
year? Is there a formal process associated with the CIP and the Coast 
Guard budget request? If so, describe the process.
    Answer. The Coast Guard has been actively developing an approach to 
strengthen our capital investment planning and decision-making 
processes. A Coast Guard representative participated in the joint 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)/Government Accounting Office 
(GAO) sponsored capital guide group that recently published the OMB 
Capital Programming Guide. Using the logic model specified in the 
guide, and the specific format it describes for an Agency Capital Plan 
(ACP), the Coast Guard has developed, and will soon publish, the fiscal 
year 1999 Coast Guard ACP.
    The Coast Guard ACP is divided into two major sections. The first 
section is narrative text that describes the Service's capital planning 
and investment process, the mission analysis and inventory management 
processes, and the funding strategies we employ. It is followed by four 
appendices that list, by operating system (Deepwater, Coastal, Inland, 
C\4\ISR, and Shore), our current inventory of capital assets, approved 
and funded acquisitions and projects, acquisitions and projects for 
which we are seeking funding, and notional long range capital needs 
based on service life and Operating Expenses (OE) cost calculations.
    The ACP serves as the foundation for the development of the annual 
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) budget request. It 
lays out the logic behind annual funding requests; prioritizes funding 
needs based on asset condition, performance, and cost; explores 
tradeoffs between various potential investment strategies and asset 
options, and; compares the capability of the current inventory with 
present and future needs of the service. This data is then translated 
into a prioritized slate of AC&I projects or acquisitions across the 
entire inventory of assets which is manifested in project budget sheets 
for the current fiscal year.
    Input to the ACP parallels the budget development process and the 
Coast Guard's business and capital planning cycle.
                   fiscal year 2000 budget submission
    Question. When will the fiscal year 2000 Coast Guard budget be 
transmitted to OST and to OMB? When will the fiscal year 2000 budget be 
available to Congress?
    Answer. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 budget was submitted to 
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) in two phases, in 
June 1998 and July 1998, respectively. The Coast Guard budget is 
scheduled to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
in September 1998. The President's budget, containing the Coast Guard's 
request, is scheduled to be submitted to Congress in February 1999.
   contract award for national distress system modernization project
    Question. There are indications that the Coast Guard intends to 
award the NDSMP in fiscal year 1999. How is it possible for this to 
occur if the fiscal year 1999 budget request is sufficient only to 
support the Coast Guard acquisition team?
    Answer. At this time it is premature to estimate a contract award 
date for the National Distress System Modernization Project.
                      c-130 flight hour shortfalls
    Question. It is the committee's understanding that the Coast Guard 
has a significant shortfall in HC-130 flight hours due primarily to the 
growing requirement for drug interdiction operations in the Caribbean 
and Eastern Pacific? What is needed to satisfy this shortfall?
    Answer. The United States Interdiction Coordinator (USIC) recently 
completed work on a Five Year Transit Zone Asset Requirements document 
that outlines interagency assets required to meet the National Drug 
Control Strategy (NDCS) year 2002 goals.
    In this document, seven critical mission areas are identified, one 
of which is ``locate maritime targets.'' Long-range maritime patrol 
aircraft (MPA), equipped with sophisticated surface search radar, 
infrared sensors and electro-optical cameras are required to provide 
this function. USIC has validated the shortfall in maritime patrol 
aircraft resource hours to be 560 per month. This USIC study is still 
being reviewed within the Administration.
         c-130j use in caribbean and eastern pacific operations
    Question. All services within the Department of Defense that 
currently operate the C-130 have committed to modernizing their 
existing fleets with the new C-130J because of its improved reliability 
and maintainability, reduced operating costs and manpower requirements, 
and its enhanced performance. Would these improved capabilities make 
this aircraft a more effective platform in your Caribbean and Eastern 
Pacific operations?
    Answer. To be truly effective, any long range search aircraft must 
be fully integrated with other deepwater assets to optimize operational 
effectiveness. Also, any surveillance platform must include automated 
sensor technology in order to fully leverage the increased capability.
    With respect to the HC-130J, the possibility of reduced staffing 
and operating costs is unknown. The Coast Guard currently operates 26 
operational ``H'' model HC-130 aircraft. HC-130J aircraft would require 
a different logistical support infrastructure than the HC-130H 
(additional inventory, technical support staff, supply managers, both 
pilot and mechanic training, and possibly air facility changes). The 
cost of this additional support infrastructure is unknown. The 
advertised HC-130J improvements in reliability and maintainability, and 
any potential reductions in operating costs, have not been service 
tested.
                 c-130j use in other operational areas
    Question. Is there anywhere else that the Coast Guard is currently 
operating C-130's that the C-130J could significantly enhance your 
aviation operations?
    Answer. Coast Guard C-130 operations could be enhanced anywhere 
with the C-130J aircraft due to its advertised range, endurance, fuel 
consumption, and power availability. However, the increased operational 
capability would bring new maintenance and logistical support 
requirements, including a different logistical support infrastructure 
than the C-130H (additional inventory, technical support staff, supply 
managers, both pilot and mechanic training, and possibly changes to 
receiving air facilities). The cost of this additional support 
infrastructure is unknown.
                     deployments in support of dod
    Question. What was the cost of Coast Guard deployments for the past 
year in support of Department of Defense (DOD) missions outside of U.S. 
waters? Please provide the cost breakout by exercise and time period.
    Answer. Coast Guard cutters conducted a limited number of out-of-
U.S. deployments in support of DOD operations in fiscal year 1997 as 
follows:

                                                              Additional
        Deployment/Dates                               cost estimate \1\
``BALTOPs'' European deployment: June-Oct. 1997...............  $300,000
``UNITAS'' South America deployment: 60 days in phases from 
    July-Nov. 1997............................................    50,000
``CARAT'' Western Pacific deployment: May-Aug. 1997...........   200,000
``TRADEWINDS'' Caribbean deployment: Oct. 1997................    20,000

\1\ Additional costs refer to expenses in excess of normal costs of 
cutter deployments in or adjacent to U.S. waters. Most of the added 
costs are accrued from international port call expenses and long 
distance logistics support.

    Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) deployed year round to the 
Arabian Gulf in support of CENTCOM's Iraq sanctions enforcement mission 
(added cost was approximately $374,000). A Port Security Unit deployed 
to Korea for ``FOAL EAGLE 97'' (October 1996, added cost was 
approximately $50,000). The UNITAS/WATC (West Africa Training Cruise) 
detachment deploys annually aboard U.S. Navy ships conducting 
professional exchanges with South American and West African navies/
coast guards at a budgeted cost of $103,000 per year. Other exercises 
conducted in support of DOD occurred in U.S. waters, or waters 
immediately adjacent.
               use of loran/eurofix for dgps corrections
    Question. There have been numerous press reports about 
international utilization of Loran to transmit differential GPS 
corrections by implementing ``Eurofix.'' There are reports that 
modifications to the Loran transmitters permitting Eurofix will cost 
only about $3 million. Are those cost estimates accurate? Provide us 
details about this concept.
    Answer. Eurofix is a European developmental system for transmitting 
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) corrections on the LORAN 
signal. European researchers are currently testing a prototype system 
to determine the potential of this concept. Broadcast standards or 
signal specifications for this system have not been developed. Eurofix 
currently does not meet the performance requirements for maritime and 
aviation navigation, and its future potential to do so is unknown. The 
Coast Guard has no plans to evaluate this system as a replacement to 
the existing maritime DGPS service and cannot validate the cost 
estimate suggested above. The Coast Guard radiobeacon-based system is 
nearing full operational capability in six months, meets all 
international requirements for maritime and navigation safety, and 
costs approximately $5 million per year to operate. The user community 
has purchased receivers and equipment compatible with the radiobeacon-
based DGPS, and would have to convert to new equipment for any future 
system that was based on non-radiobeacon technology.
                         eurofix demonstration
    Question. We understand that the Coast Guard is now planning a 
Eurofix demonstration and test at Wildwood, NJ. Since there is 
considerable interest in this concept, are any other agencies being 
invited to participate in any way in that demonstration and testing? In 
conjunction with the demonstration and test, will the Coast Guard plan 
to demonstrate a receiver for the Eurofix system here in Washington?
    Answer. The Coast Guard conducted limited tests of Eurofix at the 
LORAN Support Unit in Wildwood, NJ the week of March 30, 1998. No other 
agencies participated in the test, and there was no Coast Guard 
receiver demonstration conducted in Washington. Test results are 
currently being evaluated.
    The primary purpose of the test was to investigate this 
technology's utility as a backup to conventional phone lines for the 
Coast Guard's remote control of some of the LORAN operating functions. 
As a related item, some testing was done to determine if a differential 
signal would interfere with the LORAN signal. Some data was also 
collected on navigational accuracy.
                       expansion of dgps to ndgps
    Question. A recent story in GPS World magazine indicates that the 
Office of Management and Budget is opposed to expansion of the Coast 
Guard Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) network to a 
nationwide DGPS. Is it true that part of the objection is because the 
service would compete with existing commercially available services and 
what other objections were raised by the Office of Management and 
Budget?
    Answer. The official Administration position on this issue is 
reflected in the fiscal year 1999 President's Budget submission. In 
that document, the Administration requested adequate funding for the 
Nationwide DGPS (NDGPS) system for fiscal year 1999. It is the 
Administration's position that future capital funding, if any, for 
NDGPS, will be provided through contributions from federal agencies 
whose programs will benefit from the new technology.
                      gwen as a supplement to dgps
    Question. This same story indicated that there is interest in using 
the decommissioned Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) to supplement 
the Coast Guard radio beacon coastal Differential Global Positioning 
System (DGPS) network and that the capital and operating costs for the 
expanded portion of the DGPS would total nearly $100 million. The plan 
would be to use some of the GWEN installations where they are and move 
others. Isn't it true that the GWEN solution really does nothing to 
provide a back up navigation solution in the event of GPS failures or 
interruptions? Since some of the GWEN installations will require 300-
foot antennas, isn't it likely there will be some significant local 
community objections to this solution?
    Answer. The capital cost to implement the Nationwide DGPS (NDGPS), 
using U.S. Air Force GWEN equipment and sites, is less than $30 
million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 
approximately $5 million. The NDGPS system is an augmentation to GPS 
and relies on the basic GPS signal to provide the improved accuracy. Of 
the 66 planned NDGPS sites, 33 sites will use existing GWEN 
installations and the remaining 33 sites will utilize GWEN equipment 
moved to other locations. The moved GWEN equipment suite includes a 
300-foot antenna tower. Appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) environmental impact assessments and documentation will be 
completed prior to each NDGPS installation.
                           loran versus gwen
    Question. Would you agree that it might make more sense to use the 
existing Loran system for the same purposes that GWEN will serve since 
Loran is a functioning, reliable, cost-effective national asset and 
infrastructure in place? And, importantly, will you agree that Loran is 
better suited than GWEN to provide a compatible backup system for the 
full range of users in the event of disruption to GPS?
    Answer. The Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) sites being 
decommissioned by the U.S. Air Force will be utilized to supplement the 
Coast Guard's coastal radio beacon maritime Differential Global 
Positioning System (DGPS) service to implement the Department of 
Transportation's (DOT) Nationwide DGPS. The capital cost to implement 
DOT's Nationwide DGPS is less than $30 million with annual operating 
and maintenance costs estimated at approximately $5 million. By 
contrast, much of the LORAN-C infrastructure is old, and it will cost 
over $200 million to recapitalize the system to keep it running for the 
same 15-year life cycle. In addition, the annual operating and 
maintenance costs for LORAN-C is $27 million.
    Nationwide DGPS, utilizing the existing GWEN sites, is an 
augmentation to GPS and relies on the basic GPS signal to provide the 
improved accuracy. An improved LORAN-C system would operate 
independently of GPS and therefore has the potential to provide a 
backup to GPS and its augmentations.
              unmet vessel requirements and estimated cost
    Question. Please provide a listing of the unmet requirements for 
vessels in the Coast Guard inventory. Also, please provide a cost 
estimate for each vessel class to complete the vessel requirement for 
that class above the amount requested in the current fiscal year 1999 
budget request.
    Answer. The Coast Guard expects to recapitalize additional vessel 
classes, however, the number of hulls and specific funding requirements 
have not been determined. Ongoing studies will finalize these 
requirements.
    The following table includes only existing major acquisition 
projects. Estimate of funding requirements beyond fiscal year 1999 data 
is taken from the Second Quarter fiscal year 1998 U.S. Coast Guard 
Quarterly Acquisition Report to Congress.

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Unmet        Estimate of
                                           requirements       funding
              Vessel Class                 beyond Fiscal     required
                                             year 1999     beyond fiscal
                                             (vessels)       year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB)..............               7        $342-472
Coastal Buoy Tender (WLM)...............         ( \1\ )           21-31
Stern Loading Buoy Boat (BUSL)..........               8           14-16
Motor Lifeboat (MLB)....................              30           14-32
Coastal Patrol Boat (CPB)...............              20          13-110
Polar Icebreaker (WAGB 20)..............               1             2-3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All vessels are under contract. Funding request includes Economic
  Price Adjustments, Target to Ceiling payments, and Change Orders on
  select prior year contracted hulls.

                     airfac relocation to muskegon
    Question. The U.S. Coast Guard plays a major role in saving lives 
and property endangered as a result of accidents and other distress 
situations on the Great Lakes. The agency maintains numerous year round 
and seasonal small boat stations and air stations and facilities on the 
Great Lakes from which assets are dispatched. In southern Lake 
Michigan, the Coast Guard's helicopters and small boats respond mainly 
to incidents involving recreational boats, although larger barges and 
cargo vessels may occasionally request assistance. Its small boats, 
helicopters, and rescue personnel share search and rescue 
responsibility with many state and local agencies that also have 
response capability.
    In fiscal year 1997, the Coast Guard relocated its air facility on 
southern Lake Michigan from Glenview, Illinois, to the county airport 
near Muskegon, Michigan about 113 miles across the lake. This move came 
after community leaders in the village of Glenview asked the Coast 
Guard to relocate because the Naval Air Station the Coast Guard was 
using was closed and the village wanted to use the land for other 
purposes. After studying numerous locations for relocating the 
facility, the Coast Guard chose Muskegon. What effect has the move of 
the air facility had on the number of helicopter responses and on lives 
saved or lost?
    Answer. The General Accounting Office's report GAO/RCED-98-108R: 
``Relocation of Coast Guard Air Facility'' dated April 22, 1998, 
states: ``To determine the potential impact of this longer flying time 
from Muskegon on the number of lives lost or saved, we identified all 
moderate or severe cases (33) involving lives saved or lost from 1995 
through 1997. We evaluated 30 cases in all . . . we determined that for 
almost all cases, either the Coast Guard's small boats or other nearby 
assets made the rescue, or death occurred very quickly, making the 
helicopter response time unimportant. However, in two cases the 
helicopter response time could have made a difference. In one case, a 
1997 incident, the shorter response time could have been a factor in 
saving four lives because Muskegon was closer to the incident. In a 
1996 case, the longer response time could have been a factor in the 
loss of life if the air facility had been located in Muskegon.''
                         relocation to muskegon
    Question. Is the Coast Guard satisfied with its decision to move to 
Muskegon and has it decided to permanently remain there?
    Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard is satisfied with this decision. The 
Coast Guard made the best business decision to comply with the 
congressional mandate to maintain an air facility.
              cost comparison of muskegon with other sites
    Question. How much difference in costs is there between Muskegon 
and the next least costly site studied?
    Answer. The Coast Guard's internal study determined that operating 
from Benton Harbor, the next least costly site, would cost over 
$4,400,000 more in total net life cycle costs (discounted at seven 
percent over 25 years), than would operating from Muskegon.
                  resources in southern lake michigan
    Question. How do the Coast Guard's and other entities search and 
rescue resources in southern Lake Michigan compare to other areas of 
the country?
    Answer. Coast Guard, state, and local search and rescue resources 
in southern Lake Michigan (defined as the area south of a line from 
above Muskegon, Michigan, on the eastern shore to below Sheboygan, 
Wisconsin, on the western shore) are as numerous and well organized as 
any search and rescue region in the nation. The Coast Guard has nine 
boat stations, two air stations, and an air facility (open during the 
height of the recreational boating season) providing coverage of 
southern Lake Michigan.
    In addition, many local rescue resources are available near the 
lakeshore, with 59 boats and nine helicopters operated by the Coast 
Guard Auxiliary, various state and local agencies and private groups in 
southern Lake Michigan. Southern Michigan, therefore, enjoys a level of 
search and rescue response not typically available in other areas of 
the United States.
                 airfac need in southern lake michigan
    Question. Does the Coast Guard believe an air facility is needed in 
southern Lake Michigan?
    Answer. No, the Coast Guard does not believe there is an 
operational need for an air facility in the southern Lake Michigan 
area. However, because of the congressional mandate to maintain a 
presence, the Coast Guard conducted an extensive study to determine the 
best operational and cost effective location for such a facility. This 
study validated that both Air Station's Detroit and Traverse City can 
meet the Coast Guard's two hour search and rescue (SAR) response 
standard in the southern Lake Michigan area without the additional 
resources provided by an air facility.
    The success of the SAR response in any region relies on the 
capability of the entire SAR system, rather than the response of a 
single unit. The southern Lake Michigan SAR system is now serviced by 
nine Coast Guard boat stations, two Coast Guard air stations, a Coast 
Guard air facility, and a host of Coast Guard Auxiliary assets. These 
Coast Guard resources are supplemented by many other civilian rescue 
facilities, including numerous police and fire department response 
units.
                 helicopter versus small boat responses
    Question. How many responses annually do helicopters make as 
compared to small boats?
    Answer. On average, from 1994-97, small boats responded to about 97 
percent of the total number of incidents, and helicopters the remainder 
(3 percent).
                    potential future consolidations
    Question. To develop its national streamlining plan, the Coast 
Guard established two teams to assess potential organizational 
consolidations and training infrastructure modifications. The teams' 
objectives were to identify recurring budget savings of $100 million 
without reducing services to the public. They identified a variety of 
options to streamline the agency. The Coast Guard selected several of 
the options which made up the Coast Guard's national streamlining plan. 
Some of the options not included in the national streamlining plan were 
to replace the Coast Guard's current field structure with a regional 
structure, eliminate the two Maintenance and Logistics Commands 
(centralized support commands), eliminate one of the two Maintenance 
and Logistics Commands by merging them together, and close one of the 
three training centers (Training Center Petaluma, CA) to consolidate 
training.
    In light of the Coast Guard's tight budget, does the Coast Guard 
now plan to implement any of the remaining options? If so, which ones? 
If not, why not?
    Answer. Yes. One option, consolidating training, is still under 
active consideration for implementation. In the fiscal year 1999 
Justifications, the Coast Guard proposes to optimize Coast Guard 
training infrastructure, with a goal to match infrastructure to near- 
and long-term requirements. One option under consideration is to 
consolidate existing training centers.
    The Coast Guard has no plans to consider any of the other major 
organizational or infrastructure options considered during the 
development of the national streamlining plan.
    anticipated timeframe and savings for potential future training 
                             consolidations
    Question. What is the anticipated time frame and savings for any 
additional planned changes?
    Answer. An analysis of the Coast Guard's training infrastructure is 
ongoing; anticipated savings pend final decision, which is expected in 
fiscal year 1999.
                 current status of activity prototypes
    Question. What is the current status of the prototype activities?
    Answer. Three of the four Activity commands are currently 
operational. The fourth, Activity South Texas, was disestablished 
because the geographic distance separating the Marine Safety Office and 
Group/Air Station commands minimized the potential for realizing the 
synergistic benefits Activity commands were designed to achieve. The 
lessons learned from the prototype Activity South Texas are being used 
in the ongoing Integrated Operations Command evaluation.
                establishment of other activity commands
    Question. Has the Coast Guard decided to establish other Activity 
commands?
    Answer. The Coast Guard will decide the future of Activity commands 
after completing the ongoing Integrated Operations Commands evaluation, 
which includes not only the prototype Activities, but also combined 
Group/Marine Safety Offices. Because each port is different in terms of 
size, type of maritime activities, weather, geography, customer base, 
and so on, it is difficult to link the performance of Activity 
commands, especially after a relatively short period of time, to 
command structure. The Integrated Operations Command evaluation will 
provide information to determine whether to maintain, expand, or 
discontinue the Activity concept. The Coast Guard expects to complete 
the evaluation in 1998.
                  activity command anticipated savings
    Question. What savings are anticipated from the implementation of 
these Activities?
    Answer. Savings were not the primary reason behind the decision to 
create Activity commands. Activities were intended to enhance 
coordination and effectiveness between different operational commands 
within a specific area of operations; provide for greater local scope 
of control to reduce the burden on streamlined District offices; and 
provide ``one-stop shopping'' for Coast Guard customers in the port.
       ports and waterways safety systems (pawss) program status
    Question. The Coast Guard currently owns and operates Vessel 
Traffic Service (VTS) systems in eight ports throughout the United 
States. The purpose of these systems is to facilitate the safe and 
efficient movement of marine vessels in and around ports and to protect 
the environment by monitoring vessel traffic, assessing the information 
and passing it along to mariners. In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard 
initiated an effort to implement the Ports and Waterways Safety System 
(PAWSS), which is a follow-on effort to the Coast Guard's VTS 2000 
program that the Congress terminated in 1996. Explain the current 
status of the Coast Guard's PAWSS program. When will the VTS system in 
New Orleans be installed and in operation?
    Answer. Three contracts, instrumental in the installation of the 
Automatic Identification System (AIS)-based Vessel Traffic Service 
(VTS) system in New Orleans, have been awarded. The lease of up to 50 
Digital Selective Calling/Automatic Identification System (DSC/AIS) 
transponders was awarded in March 1998. The contract to provide Very 
High Frequency (VHF) voice and VHF/AIS data communications services in 
the Lower Mississippi River Vessel Traffic Service Area (VTSA) was 
awarded in April 1998. The System Integration Contract (SIC), to 
install the VTS system, was awarded in April 1998.
    The VTS system will be implemented and tested by the Coast Guard in 
two phases before becoming operational in the first quarter of fiscal 
year 2000. In Phase 1, a VTS baseline system will be installed at the 
Gretna Light Facility for limited Developmental Test and Evaluation 
(DT&E) testing. In Phase 2, the system will be transitioned to a Vessel 
Traffic Center (VTC) in downtown New Orleans for complete VTS system 
DT&E, followed by Coast Guard Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E).
    Although VTS New Orleans will be operational by the first quarter 
of fiscal year 2000, VTS New Orleans will not attain final design 
capability until all designated waterway users are outfitted with 
automatic identification system (AIS) transponders. It is difficult to 
predict when AIS will be installed and operating on all designated 
vessels in the area, because the final international and domestic 
carriage determinations pend U.S. and International Maritime 
Organization regulatory actions. However, we expect AIS carriage 
requirements will be in place in 2002.
               contact with local community stakeholders
    Question. What actions has the Coast Guard taken to contact local 
community stakeholders to discuss VTS options in their ports? What 
conclusions have been reached from any efforts taken so far?
    Answer. The Coast Guard meets regularly with maritime community 
stakeholders in New Orleans and Tampa Bay to discuss and develop 
options for Vessel Traffic Services (VTS). The local Coast Guard 
Captains of the Port have held preliminary discussions on VTS with 
their constituencies in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, San Diego, 
San Francisco, Seattle, and Valdez. As the Ports and Waterways Safety 
System project progresses, the Coast Guard will formalize the waterway 
evaluation process and continue discussion of VTS options in depth with 
local community stakeholders in more port areas. The Coast Guard is 
also continuing to host federal advisory committee meetings in Houston-
Galveston. VTS is always part of the agenda at these public meetings.
    Thus far, maritime community stakeholders and the Coast Guard have 
jointly concluded that a VTS based on Automatic Identification System 
(AIS) transponders would significantly enhance maritime safety and 
efficiency. The Coast Guard is vigorously pursuing adoption of 
technical and carriage standards for AIS. Another conclusion that has 
been reached through these outreach efforts is that in certain ports it 
maybe mutually beneficial to operate future Vessel Traffic Services in 
partnership with local stakeholders. The Coast Guard is establishing 
internal policy to foster the establishment of jointly operated VTS 
where appropriate.
                ports and waterways safety system plans
    Question. In addition to New Orleans, how many other ports is the 
Coast Guard considering for the PAWSS program?
    Answer. The Coast Guard plans to enter into Ports and Waterways 
Safety System (PAWSS) discussions later this year with the user 
communities in approximately 20 ports. We have already begun in a few 
ports. However, until the process described below is complete, we 
cannot conclude how many ports should receive a Vessel Traffic Service 
acquired through the PAWSS program.
    The Coast Guard's PAWSS project consists of three steps: port 
evaluations, requirements identification, and implementation of 
necessary measures to correct the deficiencies the process has 
identified. The first two steps, port evaluations and requirements 
identification, involve close contact with the local user community. 
Through these first two steps, safety deficiencies will be identified 
and solutions jointly conceived. Where a Vessel Traffic Service is 
necessary to ensure an adequate level of port safety, the Coast Guard 
will seek appropriate funding.
                          agency capital plan
    Question. Have you released an update of the Agency Capital Plan? 
If so, what is your most current estimate of your capital needs in 
2002?
    Answer. The Coast Guard fiscal year 1999 Agency Capital Plan (ACP) 
is making its way through the final internal clearance process and 
should be released by September 15, 1998.
                  strategy for addressing funding gap
    Question. What is the Coast Guard's strategy for addressing any 
funding gap between its probable funding level and the needs identified 
in the Agency Capital Plan?
    Answer. Our current acquisition strategy calls for completing as 
many of our ongoing acquisitions as possible prior to the major 
recapitalization efforts that are reflected in the Agency Capital Plan 
(ACP). Currently, a significant portion of the outyear funding 
requirements in the ACP are based on an estimated costs for replacement 
of specific asset classes that operate in the deepwater environment--in 
terms of vessels, aircraft, C\4\I, and sensors. These replacement costs 
assume a one-for-one replacement of current asset capabilities. More 
definitive costs in terms of magnitude and timing will be developed 
during the analysis phase of the Deepwater Capability Replacement 
Analysis.
    The analysis phase will consider both capability and capacity 
required and the cost/benefit of options to replace assets or refurbish 
them. The specific balance between this major recapitalization effort 
and other agency projects can best be determined when this analysis 
phase is complete. Once the alternatives to meeting mission capability 
and capacity needs are defined, a firm acquisition strategy can be 
developed. The Coast Guard expects to work with the Administration and 
Congress to maintain critical mission capabilities within the dictates 
of public policy and funding constraints.
             continuing operations without an ac&i increase
    Question. What actions would you have to take to continue 
operations if the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) 
appropriation is not increased through 2002?
    Answer. The Coast Guard will make every effort to carry out its 
congressionally mandated missions in the future within the funding 
appropriated by the Congress. Once the Deepwater analysis is complete, 
the Coast Guard will be better able to assess the mission impact for 
different AC&I funding levels. A delay in proceeding with the Deepwater 
Capability Replacement Analysis would result in increased maintenance 
costs and decreased availability for critical assets. In addition, the 
Coast Guard would continue to operate more personnel-intensive assets 
and experience more asset interoperability problems.
                     navigational services user fee
    Question. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes a user 
fee on navigational services provided by the Coast Guard. According to 
the President's proposal, the Coast Guard will collect about $35 
million in fiscal year 1999 and $165 million in fiscal year 2000 for 
navigational services that it provides. The fees will be used to fund 
the Coast Guard's Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) 
account. What navigational services will be subject to a user fee?
    Answer. The Coast Guard is developing regulations to implement user 
fees for domestic ice breaking and navigational services, which include 
buoy tending, vessel traffic services and radionavigation.
               navigational services user fee assessment
    Question. Who will be charged?
    Answer. The Administration proposes to charge commercial cargo 
vessels for navigation assistance services provided to them.
               navigational services user fee collection
    Question. How will the fee be collected?
    Answer. The Coast Guard is developing a plan for collection. 
Various methods are being reviewed prior to initiating rulemaking.
                navigational services user fee and ac&i
    Question. Will it be earmarked for the Acquisition, Construction, 
and Improvements (AC&I) account?
    Answer. As part of the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request, 
the Administration has proposed user fees as offsetting collections to 
the Coast Guard's AC&I account.
                      implementation of user fees
    Question. If the new fee is not implemented, what alternative 
solutions does the Coast Guard have for the funding shortfall that will 
be created?
    Answer. The Coast Guard requests that Congress implement these fees 
and does not have any alternate solutions.
                        deepwater project status
    Question. What is the status of the Deepwater Project?
    Answer. The Deepwater Capability Replacement Analysis is currently 
in the analysis phase. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in 
March 1998 with the intent to award contracts to three industry teams 
in July 1998. These contracts will be for a 16-month initial study to 
develop and propose concepts for an Integrated Deepwater System of 
surface, air, and command, control, communications, computers, 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) assets to 
effectively conduct Coast Guard missions in the Deepwater area. 
Industry proposals for this first phase are expected to be submitted by 
November 1999.
                   deepwater fiscal year 1999 funding
    Question. The Coast Guard is requesting $28 million for the Project 
in fiscal year 1999? What will the funds be used for?
    Answer. The Deepwater fiscal year 1999 funding is to continue 
industry studies begun in fiscal year 1998 to develop Integrated 
Deepwater System Concepts. Funding for the Project is as follows:

Industry Contract Options (3 @ $6,000,000)..............     $18,000,000
Independent Analysis Government Contract (1 @ 
    $4,000,000).........................................       4,000,000
Trade-off Analyses, Technology Assessments, Modeling and 
    Simulation, RFP Preparation, Contract Quality 
    Assurance, Independent Validation and Verification 
    (IV&V), Additional Studies..........................       4,500,000
Project Administration..................................       1,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      28,000,000
                       deepwater needs assessment
    Question. How does the Coast Guard know whether its Deepwater 
assets need to be replaced?
    Answer. As the service approaches the 21st Century, the Coast 
Guard's existing Deepwater assets are nearing the end of their service 
lives. Loss of capability and increased operational costs greatly 
concern the Coast Guard, as the threats it will encounter are becoming 
more sophisticated and increasingly capable. The Reliance (210-foot) 
and Hamilton (378-foot) cutter classes, built in the 1960's, are almost 
obsolete. They do not incorporate modern technology, and are personnel 
intensive, which drives operating costs even higher. The Coast Guard is 
operating C-130 Hercules aircraft, some built as early as 1972, that 
now require extensive electrical and structural upgrades, as well as 
modern sensors, to ensure continued effectiveness. The Coast Guard's 
HU-25 aircraft are over 20 years old and have major engine 
supportability problems. In short, the Coast Guard's ability to remain 
Semper Paratus--Always Ready--to carry out its Deepwater missions and 
tasks is a major concern. Without replacing its aging Deepwater assets, 
the Coast Guard will not be ready to meet tomorrow's challenges.
    Thus, because of our aging Deepwater cutters, aircraft, and 
electronics, the Coast Guard's ability to continue to serve as a unique 
instrument of national security--at home or abroad--is increasingly 
compromised.
    While the Coast Guard is not presupposing that the preferred 
alternative will be acquisition of new assets, our main objective is to 
choose an integrated system that can best meet minimum needs at the 
lowest total (acquisition plus life cycle) cost. During the analysis 
phase of the Deepwater project, industry teams will consider various 
alternative systems to meet the Coast Guard's system performance 
specification. Along with acquisition of new assets, the teams will 
consider service life extension of existing assets, as well as adapting 
Department of Defense assets to meet Coast Guard needs. It is important 
to note that our current assets are personnel intensive, and personnel 
costs account for two-thirds of Coast Guard operating costs. The long 
lead time required to acquire new assets, if that is the preferred 
alternative, makes it imperative to complete the analysis phase as 
scheduled.
                cutter and aircraft replacement schedule
    Question. What is the Coast Guard's schedule for replacing aircraft 
and cutters?
    Answer. Deepwater assets (aircraft and cutters) are coming to the 
end of their estimated service life at various times over the next 20 
years. The Coast Guard is relying on the upcoming capability analysis 
contract to evaluate various alternatives to meeting the system 
performance specification. Once the various alternatives have been 
evaluated and the results of the Coast Guard Roles and Missions Study 
are available, decisions on asset types and numbers can be made and a 
definite schedule for the sequencing of asset acquisitions (vessels, 
air, and sensors) developed. Based on the current asset timeline, the 
Coast Guard plans to request funding for the initial asset acquisitions 
in fiscal year 2001.
                  presidential advisory council review
    Question. Please provide additional details on the Presidential 
Advisory Council review of the Coast Guard's missions.
    Answer. The council will provide advice and recommendations 
regarding the appropriate roles and missions for the Coast Guard. 
Although the council will focus on all Coast Guard missions, special 
attention will be given to deepwater missions. The Coast Guard has 
drafted a charter that is in the clearance process within the 
Administration. The council's review is scheduled for completion in 
fiscal year 1999, consistent with the Deepwater acquisition timeline.
                deepwater contractor selection criteria
    Question. Current plans for the procurement indicate that three 
projects will be selected this summer. The Committee is aware of six 
teams currently formed that have expressed an interest in this summer's 
selection. What criteria will the Coast Guard use to insure that 
maximum procurement flexibility is maintained and incentives are 
maintained for the selectees to compete on cost as well as proposed 
asset mix.
    Answer. Contracts will be awarded to three industry teams for 
Integrated Deepwater System concepts. After receipt of these concepts, 
the Coast Guard will evaluate and issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to 
a maximum of three of the original participating teams. This follow-on 
RFP will result in a best value selection of one team to further 
develop and deliver the Integrated Deepwater System. Primary selection 
criteria will be maximum effectiveness to conduct Coast Guard Deepwater 
missions while providing at least the minimum capabilities required at 
lowest total ownership cost.
                  deepwater--number of contract teams
    Question. What is the rationale behind three project teams? Why not 
two, four, or five?
    Answer. A review of past shipbuilding and aircraft acquisitions 
indicates that three teams would be the best number to ensure 
innovative concepts and competition for the analysis phase of the 
project. The level of funding for the project analysis and the number 
of government personnel planned for and available on the project were 
also considerations for using three teams.
             ondcp certification of coast guard drug budget
    Question. Last year, the Congress withheld $34,300,000 from the 
Coast Guard's budget for increased drug interdiction activities until 
the Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP): (1) 
reviewed the specific activities and associated costs and benefits 
proposed by the Coast Guard; (2) compared those activities to other 
drug interdiction efforts government-wide; and (3) certified, in 
writing, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that such 
expenditures represent the best investment relative to other options. 
In November 1997, the Director, ONDCP, certified that the $34.3 million 
for the Coast Guard's activities were the best investment relative to 
other options. According to the President's fiscal year 1999 budget 
request, the Coast Guard is requesting an increase of $36 million, or 
an increase of nine percent over the 1998 level, for the Coast Guard's 
drug interdiction activities. In addition, your fiscal year 1999 budget 
request is asking for $67 million for drug interdiction capital 
expenses. Did the Director, ONDCP, conduct any special studies to 
determine that the Coast Guard's use of the $34.3 million was the best 
use of the funds?
    Answer. Each year, prior to submission of budget estimates to the 
Office of Management and Budget, agencies submit their Drug Control 
Budget to ONDCP, describe their program as it relates to the national 
strategy, and fully justify new funding requests. ONDCP originally 
certified the Coast Guard's drug-related budget, including the $34.3 
million additional funding, for fiscal year 1998 on November 18, 1996.
    After the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation 
Appropriations Act was enacted, discussions between the Coast Guard and 
ONDCP confirmed that use of additional fiscal year 1998 funds would be 
the most cost-effective expenditure of funds government-wide. ONDCP was 
very familiar with the Coast Guard's request for $34.3 million as a 
result of ONDCP's review culminating in the fiscal year 1998 drug 
budget certification. The Director of ONDCP agreed, ``. . . that the 
Coast Guard's proposed use of these funds represents the best 
investment of drug interdiction funding for fiscal year 1998,'' and 
certified it as such on November 18, 1997.
                           drug interdiction
    Question. For fiscal year 1999, what will the additional funds be 
used for and what will be the anticipated results?
    Answer. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 budget request is an 
increase of $40 million over the fiscal year 1998 level. The following 
table reflects the comparison of fiscal year 1998 enacted levels and 
fiscal year 1999 requested funding for Coast Guard drug law enforcement 


                                              [Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Increase 1998
                                                                   1998 enacted    1999 request       to 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses (OE).........................................        $366.128        $372.291          $6.163
Acquisition, Construction and Improvements (AC&I)...............          34.523          69.303          34.780
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)..............           0.938           0.736          -0.202
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Totals....................................................         401.589         442.330          40.471
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fiscal year 1999 request provides a $6.2 million increase in 
Operating Expenses (OE) funding; 50 percent of which is represented by 
the Caribbean Support Tender, the only new initiative in the fiscal 
year 1999 request. Increased productivity and mission effectiveness 
from applied technology and better use of intelligence are projected to 
result in a sustained level of effectiveness in drug interdiction 
between fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
    The fiscal year 1999 Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 
(AC&I) request includes an increase of $34.8 million allocated to drug 
law enforcement; a large percentage of this increase is for the 
Deepwater Capability Replacement Project which will contribute no 
actual improvement in law enforcement capability for at least several 
years. The AC&I request also includes $11 million for the HC-130 
Aircraft Sensor Upgrade Project designed to enhance counterdrug mission 
performance. The remaining portion of the AC&I request represents the 
drug law enforcement proportional cost share of on-going projects that 
provide multimission capability. For the most part, these projects 
maintain current capability.
    The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 funding request will provide a 
drug law enforcement effort very similar to that being provided in 
fiscal year 1998 and this should result in similar performance results.
                           drug interdiction
    Question. How many additional staff will the additional funds pay 
for and how many additional hours will assets be deployed with the 
additional funds?
    Answer. The only new initiative proposed by the President is the 
fiscal year 1999 budget is the Caribbean Support Tender, which has 41 
new staff years associated with it.
    The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes reducing counterdrug aircraft 
hours by one percent. The Coast Guard expects to offset this reduction 
with increased effectiveness from applied technology and improved 
intelligence. For example, the installation of sensor enhancements on 
HC-130 aircraft will improve the ability to classify targets at night, 
thereby improving mission efficiency and effectiveness.
            long term strategy to achieve performance goals
    Question. What is the Coast Guard's long-term strategy for 
achieving its drug interdiction performance goals?
    Answer. The Coast Guard has developed a 10-year Counterdrug 
Strategic Plan that is aligned with the National Drug Control Strategy. 
This plan, Campaign STEEL WEB, is the long term strategy for Coast 
Guard drug interdiction. The strategic concept is to conduct a sequence 
of pulse operations in high threat areas for a limited period of time 
to reduce drug traffic, then redeploy interdiction assets to other high 
threat areas, leaving sufficient forces behind to maintain route 
denial. Effective execution of Campaign STEEL WEB will allow the Coast 
Guard to:
  --Effect maritime route denial between source/transit countries and 
        the U.S.
  --Protect the arrival zone.
  --Provide support to regional engagement operations with partner 
        nations.
    The Coast Guard's multi-year drug budget includes resources 
required to carry out STEEL WEB and achieve the National Drug Control 
Strategy goals.
                  long term costs to achieve drug goal
    Question. What are the long term costs for achieving the goal that 
you have set for the Coast Guard's anti-drug program?
    Answer. Campaign STEEL WEB has been designed to support the 
National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS). To fully implement this plan and 
meet the NDCS goals, the Coast Guard projects that additional resources 
will be required. Actual outyear funding requirements for Campaign 
STEEL WEB will depend upon the many variables that affect maritime 
interdiction operations. These variables include: the evolving threats 
(smuggling routes, smuggling modes, smuggling technologies); the level 
of Department of Defense and interagency participation in counterdrug 
activities; the effects of increased international cooperation; the 
value of on-going engagement efforts with transit and source nations; 
and finally, the long term success of the strategy as currently 
developed.
       resources to meet coast guard's antidrug performance goal
    Question. Does the Coast Guard's performance goal for its antidrug 
program assume a higher level of resources or is it based on the 
resources in your budget request?
    Answer. The resources requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget are 
sufficient to achieve 1999 drug interdiction goals. The Coast Guard's 
costs to achieve the longer term National Drug Control Strategy goals 
are uncertain. They depend on the effectiveness of the President's 
comprehensive drug control program.
                  antidrug performance goal resources
    Question. If it is based on greater resources, please explain.
    Answer. As previously stated, the Coast Guard's long term strategy 
for achieving drug interdiction performance goals includes a series of 
pulse operations in high threat areas. Once drug trafficking in that 
area is reduced, pulse forces will be redeployed to other high threat 
areas while a sufficient force level will remain to maintain route 
denial. Execution of this strategy will require increased surface and 
aviation capability, improved Command, Control, Communication, 
Computers, and Intelligence (C\4\I) capability and increased 
intelligence collection support.
              container inspection program inefficiencies
    Question. You propose to reduce the size and funding of the 
Container Inspection Program by one-third in fiscal year 1999, claiming 
that you have identified program inefficiencies. Please provide a 
detailed discussion of these inefficiencies.
    Answer. From a total maritime risk perspective, the Container 
Inspection Program streamlining eliminates lower priority billets at 
U.S. commercial seaports whose hazardous material container incident 
exposure, based upon containerized cargo throughput analysis, is 
relatively low.
    Billets will now be distributed based upon a coastal risk and 
national coverage analysis. This more efficient risk-based billet 
distribution will cover 76 percent of the Atlantic, 88 percent of the 
Gulf of Mexico, and 86 percent of the Pacific coastal exposure.
                  container inspection program vision
    Question. In your original 1994 budget submission to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), you envisioned a program twice the size of 
the one you are now proposing to cut. Why has your vision changed, what 
evidence can you provide that such a reduction is warranted, and how 
can you ensure that this program will still be effective?
    Answer. Beginning in 1994, the Coast Guard's internal marine safety 
business strategies changed from detailed mission performance standards 
to broader discretion by local unit commanders in selecting activity 
levels based upon their determination of local risk. Similar to other 
mature Coast Guard hazardous material cargo monitoring and compliance 
programs, the Container Inspection Program was transformed in 1996, 
from its original design as a centrally managed new program with 
established national inspection quotas, to a decentralized 
discretionary activity whose operational tempo was not prescribed by 
law or regulation.
    In addition, we found that container inspector resource hours at 
lower risk areas were already being used by operational commanders for 
a variety of other marine safety activities which were either mandated 
by law or other discretionary activities which managed higher local 
risks. We also have better data than we did in 1994. From a total 
maritime risk perspective, the risk to mariners, vessels, U.S. 
commercial seaports, and the environment from maritime hazardous 
materials container incidents has declined since 1994.
    Beginning on December 31, 1997, the 1994 Amendments to the 
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) 
required all vessels engaged in international commerce to have on board 
a Cargo Securing Manual approved by the flag state administration. This 
new international requirement was proposed by the United States 
following the motor vessel SANTA CLARA I incident of January 1992. 
Proper use of these manuals by vessel operators will reduce the risk of 
containerized cargoes from being lost overboard, further reducing the 
overall hazardous materials container risk. Consequently, fewer 
container inspection resources are needed to manage current levels of 
risk. Also, as before, the Coast Guard will continue to monitor 
compliance through unit reports and multi-agency inspection operations.
         industry compliance with hazardous material standards
    Question. What causes you to believe that industry compliance will 
stay the same or improve once this cut is imposed?
    Answer. Hazardous material industry compliance has been steadily 
improving. The Coast Guard expects this compliance improvement trend 
will only continue, as other maritime governments continue to focus 
attention on their Hazardous Material inspection programs, and industry 
itself seeks to improve their own compliance.
    The Coast Guard will continue to monitor national levels of 
compliance through after action reports submitted by local Coast Guard 
units and through periodic multi-agency inspection pulse operations. In 
addition, the Coast Guard's Container Inspection Training and 
Assistance Team will continue to perform valuable outreach to maritime 
shippers and carriers as part of their ongoing visits to local Coast 
Guard marine safety units.
            container inspection program billet distribution
    Question. Provide the current distribution, by location, rank and 
rate (or grade), and the actual duties of the 75 full-time equivalents 
(FTE) provided by the fiscal year 1994 Department of Transportation 
Appropriations Act for the Container Inspection Program.
    Answer. See Attachment 1 for rate, billet, and unit assignments for 
65 FTE. The remaining 10 FTE were added to the Coast Guard's general 
detail.
    Nine of the original 10 billets assigned at the Container 
Inspection Training and Assistance Team (CITAT) remain; the other, a 
Third Class Gunner's Mate (E-3), was taken as a streamlining savings in 
1996. CITAT is a mobile element, fully employing its personnel to 
provide hazardous material compliance training, inspection 
standardization, and other assistance to local marine safety units.
    Of the two billets assigned to Headquarters to provide program 
oversight, a Lieutenant Commander (O-4) billet continues to be fully 
dedicated to program management. In 1997, a Lieutenant (O-3) billet was 
reassigned to other more critical program management functions, 
including the Port State Control and Offshore Compliance programs. The 
legal support Lieutenant billet remains in Headquarters as a 
multimission marine safety attorney.
    The instructor Lieutenant billet remains assigned at the Marine 
Safety School, Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia providing 
hazardous materials compliance training for a variety of resident 
marine safety courses.
    The remaining 51 inspector billets assigned at marine safety units 
became flexible multimission resources in 1996, conducting a variety of 
mandated and discretionary activities.
       container inspection program proposed fte and distribution
    Question. What is your new proposed FTE level, and how will these 
new FTE's be distributed by location, rate (or grade), and duties?
    Answer. The Coast Guard is proposing a new full time equivalent 
(FTE) level of 46 billets.
    Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team. 6 billets:
    (1) 1 03, 1 WO, 2 E6, and 2 E4 billets.
    Atlantic Coast. 18 billets, distributed as follows:
    (1) Activities New York, NY: 1 E8 MST, 1 E6 MST, 2 E5 MST's, and 2 
E4 MST's.
    (2) COTP San Juan, PR: 1 E6 MST, 1 E5 MST, and 1 E4 MST.
    (3) COTP Hampton Roads, VA: 1 E5 MST and 2 E4 MST's.
    (4) COTP Charleston, SC: 1 E4 MST and 2 E4 MST's.
    (5) COTP Miami, FL: 3 E4 MST's.
    Gulf of Mexico. 3 billets, distributed as follows:
    (1) COTP Houston, TX: 1 E6 MST and 1 E5 MST.
    (2) COTP New Orleans, LA: 1 E6 MST.
    Pacific Coast. 13 billets, distributed as follows:
    (1) COTP LA/LB, CA: 1 E8 MST, 1 E6 MST, 2 E5 MST's, and 2 E4 MST's.
    (2) COTP San Francisco, CA: 1 E5 MST and 3 E4 MST's.
    (3) COTP Puget Sound, WA: 3 E4 MST's.
    Headquarters. One LCDR (O-4) billet at Commandant (G-MOC-3) to 
manage the Container Inspection Program.
    General Detail: Six billets.
   justification for proposed container inspection program scale-back
    Question. Explain your justifications for the original full time 
equivalent (FTE) distribution and compare to your justifications for 
the new proposed FTE level. In particular, discuss the projected 
impacts of your proposal on both the operations and administration of 
the Container Inspection Program.
    Answer. The original distribution of billets was based upon the 
anticipated workload necessary to fully and rapidly implement a new 
compliance program. The initial startup of the highly visible program 
required centralized Headquarters control. As the program matured and 
program assessments were made, it became evident that maritime 
hazardous material container transportation did not represent a major 
risk and that resource allocations could be reduced with little impact 
on overall safety.
    Container Inspection Program billets would be reduced from the 
original 75 billets to 47 billets (including General Detail). Coast 
Guard container inspections would be reduced from approximately 6800/
year to about 3500/year, placing Coast Guard compliance efforts in line 
with the existing tempo of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) operations. Associated training 
requirements would be reduced. Program administration would not be 
affected, since one FTE will remain in Coast Guard Headquarters for 
national program management.
                container inspection program activities
    Question. Provide specific data on the number and locations of 
container inspections conducted, and the number and type of enforcement 
actions, including all penalties assessed by the Coast Guard since the 
program's May 11, 1994 inception, sorted both by year and by location.
    Answer. The 1996 U.S. Coast Guard Container Inspections Program 
Initial Impact Assessment Report section on civil penalty assessments 
for calendar years 1994-1997 was delivered to the Subcommittee on 
September 23, 1998. The report contains a complete breakdown of 
container inspection activities by marine safety units and final agency 
civil penalty data by 49 CFR cite.

                                 CONTAINER INSPECTION PROGRAM SUMMARY (CY94-97)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Calendar year--
                    Activity                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1994            1995            1996            1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.....................................           1,942           6,793           9,575           8,290
Completed Civil Penalty Actions.................             499             576             593             317
Civil Penalty Collections.......................        $877,110      $1,000,027      $1,932,225      $1,618,925
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              container inspection program evaluation plan
    Question. During the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Hearing on the 
Coast Guard budget, you stated that you were developing an Evaluation 
Plan to measure the effectiveness of the Container Inspection Program. 
Provide a copy of the plan and any updates. Did the plan develop a 
program baseline and collect the data necessary to measure 
effectiveness as you stated it would?
    Answer. The Container Inspection Program (CIP) Evaluation Plan, 
dated February 10, 1995, was completed in February 1995, and delivered 
to the Subcommittee on September 23, 1998. The plan included a baseline 
analysis (Chapter 2) and measures of effectiveness (Chapter 5). The 
program measures of effectiveness it discussed have continued to evolve 
and are being incorporated into a completely revised Container 
Inspection Program policy chapter for publication in the Coast Guard 
Marine Safety Manual later this year.
    The measures of effectiveness detailed in the evaluation plan have 
been used to measure program impacts. However, isolating and assessing 
the impacts of the Coast Guard's CIP is difficult, if not impossible, 
due to the synergistic efforts of similar compliance and assistance 
programs being conducted by other Department of Transportation modal 
administrations, state/local government programs, and by the private 
sector.
                   maritime industry compliance data
    Question. Provide all available data on the current state of 
maritime industry compliance with the regulations governing 
containerized cargo.
    Answer. Final agency actions and collection statistics for calendar 
year 1995 through March 1998 were delivered to the Subcommittee on 
September 23, 1998.
                  maritime industry compliance results
    Question. What do you conclude from this data regarding the level 
of industry compliance since the establishment of the Container 
Inspection Program (CIP)? In particular, describe any changes, how 
these changes were measured, and how much change, if any, can be 
attributed to the efforts of the Container Inspection Program?
    Answer. There has been a noticeable reduction in the percentage of 
total discrepancies discovered, using standardized nationwide 
inspections conducted by the Container Inspection Training and 
Assistance Team (CITAT). Results show a 46 percent decline in maritime 
hazardous materials transportation civil penalty cases between calendar 
year 1996 (593 cases) and calendar year 1998 (317 cases). This 
reduction, coupled with the declining number of detentions resulting 
from CITAT inspections, demonstrates an improving maritime industry 
compliance trend. While the CIP has undoubtedly contributed to this 
trend, there is no way to specifically quantify the contribution. 
Cooperative efforts conducted by other maritime nations, Department of 
Transportation modal administrations, state/local governments, and by 
the private sector have also contributed significantly toward making a 
positive impact on the program.
    Fiscal year 1996 CITAT statistics were delivered to the 
Subcommittee on September 23, 1998.
   container inspection program multi-agency strike force operations
    Question. When and where were the most recent targeted, multi-
agency operations to determine compliance with the containerized cargo 
regulations? What were the results of these operations. Have you 
measured any change in compliance levels following such operations? If 
so, how have compliance levels changed?
    Answer. As shown in the following table, recent Multi-Agency Strike 
Force Operations (MASFO) conducted in Long Beach/Los Angeles, 
California and Honolulu, Hawaii in 1997 indicate a decline in and 
severity of the deficiencies discovered. Related correspondence was 
delivered to the Subcommittee on September 23, 1998.

                                 MASFO INSPECTION/DEFICIENCY SUMMARY (ALL MODES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Total inspections    Total deficiencies        Deficiency/
                                               --------------------------------------------   inspection ratio
                                                                                                  (percent)
                     Unit                        Previous     1997     Previous     1997   ---------------------
                                                  MASFO      MASFO      MASFO      MASFO     Previous     1997
                                                                                              MASFO      MASFO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSO LA/LB, CA.................................        562        654        209        224         37         34
MSO Honolulu, HI..............................        149        110        177         40        119         36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            marine casualties involving containerized cargo
    Question. In 1992, the Santa Clara I lost several containers of 
highly toxic arsenic trioxide off the New Jersey coast. This casualty 
highlighted the serious safety and environmental problems associated 
with improper transport of containerized hazardous materials on or near 
U.S. waters, and led directly to the creation of the Container 
Inspection Program. Provide data to date on the number and type of 
marine casualties involving containerized cargo since the Santa Clara I 
incident.
    Answer. Excluding the Santa Clara I, there were 1,431 reportable 
marine casualties involving container ships that were investigated for 
cause by the Coast Guard between January 1, 1992 and April 1, 1998. Of 
the 1,431 casualty cases involving container ships, only nine of them 
involved containers and /or hazardous material. Of these nine cases, 
seven involved leaking containers, one resulted in the loss of 34 
containers (none containing hazardous material) overboard, and one was 
caused by a fire in the vessel's container hold.
                      assistance by other agencies
    Question. In your fiscal year 1999 budget justifications you state 
that the ``Capability to carry out HAZMAT inspections has now been 
generated in other agencies, allowing the Coast Guard to make some 
reductions to its container inspection program''. Please quantify these 
other agencies capabilities and answer the following questions:
  --To which other agencies are you referring?
  --What, specifically, are each of these other agencies doing with 
        respect to container inspection?
  --Are these other agencies enforcing the exact same regulations for 
        which the Coast Guard is responsible? If not, how do these 
        regulations differ?
  --How many inspectors do each of these agencies have, where are these 
        inspectors located, which geographic areas/port facilities do 
        they oversee, and what are the frequency and types of their 
        inspections?
  --How long have each of these agencies been inspecting containers and 
        how many inspections have they conducted? Provide data on the 
        number and type of enforcement actions, including any penalties 
        assessed, that each agency has taken.
  --What types of interactions have you had with these other agencies 
        to ensure that their inspectors are properly trained and that 
        the container regulations are being adequately and consistently 
        enforced?
  --Please describe all joint training, inspections or enforcement 
        actions with other agencies.
    Answer. General responsibilities, field level personnel resources, 
and activity levels within maritime and surface hazardous material 
transportation compliance programs are:
  --Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) inspects 
        hazardous materials manufacturing and repair facilities, 
        commercial shippers, and shipments. RSPA employs 20 full-time 
        shipper focused inspectors. During calendar year 1995, RSPA 
        conducted five percent (562 of 11,460) of shipper inspections 
        conducted by DOT;
  --Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), with 59 full-time inspectors 
        (45 full time federal railroad and 14 hazardous material state 
        inspectors), examines rail yards, hazardous material shippers, 
        and tank and non-bulk railcar manufacturing/repair facilities. 
        In calendar year 1995, FRA conducted 39 percent (4245 of 
        11,460) of shipper inspections conducted by DOT; and
  --Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) examines motor carrier 
        operations, equipment, driver qualification, commercial drivers 
        license regulations, financial responsibility, hazardous 
        materials, etc. to determine if the motor carrier meets the 
        safety fitness standards. FHWA employs 28 full-time and 258 
        part-time motor carrier inspectors. In calendar year 1995, FHWA 
        conducted one percent (137 of 11,460) of shipper inspections 
        conducted by DOT.
  --All the agencies are enforcing the same Hazardous Materials 
        regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 
        171-173. However, in addition to 49 CFR 171-173, each agency 
        has extra regulations to enforce for their specific mode of 
        transportation. The agencies and specific regulations are as 
        follows: the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) also 
        enforces 49 CFR 174; the Coast Guard also enforces 49 CFR 176; 
        and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also enforces 49 
        CFR 177.
  --The Coast Guard Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team 
        (CITAT) offers joint training sessions with the other the 
        agencies. In fiscal year 1997, three sessions in three 
        different cities were held with FRA and one session was held 
        with FHWA.
  --The Coast Guard and the other agencies are involved in joint 
        inspections and enforcement actions. The Multi-Agency Strike 
        Force Operation (MASFO) is a type of joint inspection/
        enforcement action that the Coast Guard is involved in. The 
        MASFO's gather data to be used for enforcement purposes promote 
        teamwork among the local, state and federal enforcement 
        agencies and help determine trends and patterns for targeting 
        high-risk shippers with a history of non-compliance.
  --The specific information concerning where the other agency 
        inspectors are located; which geographic areas/port facilities 
        other agencies oversee; the frequency and type of inspections 
        other agencies perform; how long other agencies have been 
        inspecting containers; or the number and type of enforcement 
        actions should be provided by those agencies.
                    communications to other agencies
    Question. Provide copies of all senior level correspondence through 
which the Coast Guard has alerted other agencies regarding your 
proposed reduction in the container inspection effort.
    Answer. The Coast Guard has not alerted other agencies regarding 
our proposed reduction in the container inspection program. The Coast 
Guard is awaiting congressional approval of the reduction prior to 
formally notifying other agencies. However, the Coast Guard's marine 
safety strategic business plans are public knowledge and are available 
on the World Wide Web. These plans, beginning in 1996 identified the 
service's core inspection competencies as either legislative mandates 
or, as in the case of container inspections, discretionary activities 
based upon local risk.
              anticipated savings through fiscal year 2002
    Question. As part of the continuing effort to streamline the Coast 
Guard, the President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes additional 
streamlining actions that will yield over $20 million in annual savings 
by 2001. Prior efforts to streamline the Coast Guard involved a plan to 
save about $77 million a year by fiscal year 1999. This prior cost-
cutting effort included the closure of Governor's Island. Please 
describe the Coast Guard's plans for achieving savings that will yield 
over $20 million in annual savings.
    Answer. During the period 1994-1998, the Coast Guard saved the 
American taxpayer more than $400 million in gross programmatic 
reductions. Of this amount, nearly $78 million in net annual savings 
were attributable to the Coast Guard generated National Streamlining 
Plan, which included closing Governor's Island.
    The President's fiscal year 1999 budget states ``As part of a 
continuing effort to streamline the Coast Guard, the 1999 Budget 
assumes facility closures and other streamlining that will yield over 
$20 million in annual savings by 2001.'' The following fiscal year 1999 
budget initiatives will contribute to this effort. Actual savings may 
vary due to several factors (i.e., lower than anticipated Acquisition 
Construction, and Improvements Appropriation funding levels may delay 
project completion), but should exceed $20 million by 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Net recurring
                                                operating      Savings
        Fiscal year 1999 initiative             expenses         year
                                                 savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of one time costs/annualization     -$8,000,000         1999
 of prior-year efficiencies................
Optimize Coast Guard Training                           TBD         2002
 Infrastructure............................
Operational Adjustments....................      -7,000,000         1999
Reduce Seagoing and Coastal Buoy Tender         -14,000,000      ( \1\ )
 Fleet Size from 37 to 30..................
Finance Center Computer Savings............        -900,000         1999
LORAN-C Consolidated Control...............      -1,500,000         1999
Fleet Logistics Savings....................      -1,500,000         1999
270-Foot Command and Control Savings.......        -500,000         1999
Restructure Aviation Workforce.............        -300,000         1999
HC-130 Engine Conversion Savings...........        -300,000         1999
Air Station Atlantic City Consolidation....        -500,000         1999
Close Air Facility Long Island.............      -1,500,000         1999
Relocate Air Facility Glenview, IL.........        -300,000         1999
GSA Rent Reduction.........................      -3,300,000         1999
Military Personnel Management Efficiencies.      -6,000,000         2000
Federal Workforce Act Completion...........        -500,000         1999
Military to Civilian Conversion............        -750,000         1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pends AC&I funding levels.

                  status of governor's island disposal
    Question. What is the current status of removing Governors Island 
from the Coast Guard's real property inventory?
    Answer. Governors Island was reported as excess to the General 
Services Administration on July 25, 1997. In accordance with Federal 
Real Property Management Regulations (41 CFR 101-47.402-1), Governors 
Island will remain in the Coast Guard's real property inventory until 
the property is disposed of by the General Services Administration. The 
Administrator, General Services Administration is prohibited from 
disposing of Governors Island prior to fiscal year 2002 under Section 
9101 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (105 Public Law 33; 111 Stat. 
251).
       navy's regional synchronous optical network (sonet) rings
    Question. What annual savings could be achieved by joining the 
Navy's regional Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) rings? The 
committee is informed that the significant increase in backbone 
bandwidth over conventional point-to-point telecommunications 
connections make these SONET rings increasingly more cost effective to 
operate when more client agencies make use of them. Has the Coast Guard 
done any assessment of potential savings from joining the Navy's SONET 
rings?
    Answer. Telecommunications services offered by the Defense 
Information Systems Network (DISN), including SONET, were considered 
but found to be significantly more expensive than the point-to-point 
architecture subsequently chosen. The Coast Guard WAN, known as Coast 
Guard Data Network (CGDN) PLUS, will eventually provide data networking 
telecommunications services to over 865 units throughout the United 
States and abroad. The overwhelming majority of these Coast Guard units 
are small and not located in the same geographic area as Navy commands. 
The Coast Guard continues to evaluate efficiencies that may be offered 
by Navy, other agencies and commercial service providers.

                          Subcommittee Recess

    Senator Shelby. The Subcommittee on Transportation will 
next convene on Tuesday, March 24, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen 192 
to discuss passenger rail in America and Amtrak's future.
    We thank you for your attendance.
    The hearing is now recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Thursday, March 19, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:04 a.m., Tuesday, 
March 24.]


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1999

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1998

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 9:04 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby, Specter, Gorton, Bennett, 
Lautenberg, and Reid.

            AMTRAK'S FUTURE AND PASSENGER RAIL ALTERNATIVES

                        CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
            DELAWARE

                            Opening Remarks

    Senator Shelby. I thank you all for making this earlier 
starting time. We have a lot of witnesses to hear from today. 
We are going to hear from both of my colleagues from Delaware, 
Senators Roth and Biden, and later we are going to hear from 
Senator Baucus. I am certainly happy to accommodate all of 
them, as well as my colleague from New Jersey, Senator 
Lautenberg.

                         Amtrak: Not Efficient

    Through the fiscal year 1998, the Federal Government has 
provided a total subsidy to Amtrak of $21 billion, an annual 
average of $750 million a year. This is an extraordinarily high 
subsidy level for what is essentially a Government-sanctioned 
monopoly that is in the opinion of many experts not managing 
its assets in a manner that maximizes the taxpayers' 
investment.
    But Congress is implicitly responsible for this situation. 
We have agreed to provide these funds year after year for a 
national passenger railroad that is not truly national, a rail 
system that moves fewer people in a year than the Atlanta 
Airport enplanes and deplanes in 3 months and, for many of the 
passengers that Amtrak does reach, serves them at infrequent 
and inconvenient times.
    We have become locked into supporting, I believe, the 
status quo. Instead, we should be looking for ways to foster 
competition, eliminate monopolies, and work for better, more 
economic rail passenger service.
    Last Thursday I told Secretary Slater that the first dollar 
in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill would be a highway 
dollar and the last dollar in the bill would be a highway 
dollar, and that in between we would focus on safety programs 
and all the other transportation programs that are funded by 
this subcommittee. I pointed out then that the Senate-passed 
ISTEA bill envisions a substantially higher highway obligation 
limitation than the record level we appropriated in 1998 and 
that our ability to fund nonhighway spending in the 1999 bill 
will be constrained by the ISTEA-driven expectations of a much 
larger national highway program.
    Within this context, the administration's request for 
Amtrak of $621 million is a very difficult target to hit, 
particularly when you take into account that these appropriated 
funds would be in addition to the $1.1 billion that the 
railroad will receive in TRA funds again in 1999. That is a 
total of $1.7 billion. It would be quite a windfall for Amtrak. 
Providing appropriated funds in addition to the TRA funds may 
not be warranted and under the current budget constraints may 
be impractical.
    But today I do not want the focus of this hearing to be the 
debate about whether or not Amtrak should be subsidized by the 
Federal Government or what the right level of support is. These 
are important and interesting questions, but today the focus of 
this hearing is how we can improve the intercity passenger rail 
in the United States. I want the Appropriations Committee here 
to be instrumental in helping to ensure that every mode of 
transportation is competitive, efficient, economical, and 
responds to the needs of the market.

                           Prepared Statement

    Without objection, I will insert my complete written 
statement in the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Senator Shelby

    The subcommittee will now come to order. I thank you all 
for arranging to make this earlier starting time--we have a lot 
of witnesses to hear from today. My two colleagues from 
Delaware, Senators Roth and Biden, asked that they be allowed 
to make some brief remarks at this hearing, as has Senator 
Baucus of Montana, and I am certainly happy to accommodate 
them. The subcommittee members will make their opening 
statements, and then we will listen as you deliver your 
remarks.
    Through fiscal year 1998, the federal government has 
provided a total subsidy to Amtrak of $21 billion--an annual 
average of about $750 million a year. This is an 
extraordinarily high subsidy level for what is essentially a 
government-sanctioned monopoly that is, in the opinion of many 
experts, not managing its assets in a manner that maximizes the 
taxpayers' investment. But Congress is implicitly responsible 
for this situation. We have agreed to provide these funds year 
after year for a national passenger railroad that is not truly 
national; a rail system that moves fewer people in a year than 
Atlanta Airport enplanes and deplanes in three months; and, for 
many of the passengers Amtrak does reach, serves them at 
infrequent and inconvenient times. We have become locked in to 
supporting the status quo. Instead, we should be looking for 
ways to foster competition, eliminate monopolies, and work for 
better, more economic rail passenger service.
    Last Thursday, I told Secretary Slater that the first 
dollar in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill would be a 
highway dollar, and that the last dollar in the bill would be a 
highway dollar--and that in between, we will focus on safety 
programs, and all the other transportation programs that are 
funded by this subcommittee. I pointed out that the Senate-
passed ISTEA bill envisions a substantially higher highway 
obligation limitation than the record level we appropriated for 
fiscal year 1998, and, that our ability to fund non-highway 
spending in the 1999 bill will be constrained by the ISTEA-
driven expectations of a much larger national highway program.
    Within this context, the administration's request for 
Amtrak of $621 million is a very difficult target to hit, 
particularly when you take into account that these appropriated 
funds would be in addition to the $1.1 billion that the 
railroad will receive in TRA funds again in 1999. That's a 
total of more than $1.7 billion--it would be quite a windfall 
for Amtrak. Providing appropriated funds in addition to the TRA 
funds may not be warranted, and under the current budgetary 
constraints, may be impractical.
    But today, I do not want the focus of this hearing to be 
the debate about whether or not Amtrak should be subsidized by 
the federal government, or what the ``right'' level of support 
is. These are important and interesting questions, but today, 
the focus of this hearing is on how we can improve intercity 
passenger rail in the U.S. I want this Appropriations Committee 
to be instrumental in helping ensure that every mode of 
transportation is competitive, efficient, economical, and 
responds to the needs of the market.
    I welcome the opportunity to hear from my colleagues; from 
the panel on the current status of Amtrak, which will include 
testimony from GAO and the DOT Inspector General; and, 
especially from the panel where we will explore some 
alternatives for improving passenger rail in America. This 
panel is made up of non-governmental witnesses from outside the 
beltway--New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia--all 
of whom have expertise in passenger rail issues, and ideas 
about ways to improve passenger rail in the U.S. Our last panel 
will be concerning the administration's budget request for 
Amtrak in fiscal year 1999, and I think it is worth mentioning 
here that, for the first time, Amtrak has agreed to the 
administration's budget request and has included that same 
funding level in the railroad's own federal grant request. I 
want to thank OMB Deputy Director Jack Lew for presenting the 
administration's request for us today.
    I think we should all settle in for what will probably be a 
fairly long hearing, and which may be interrupted by votes on 
the Supplemental appropriations bill. I'll now invite my 
subcommittee colleagues to make their opening statements, 
before we hear from the panel of guest Senators.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG

    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I particularly 
want to thank you for being so accommodating in terms of what 
time we start, and also to thank our colleague the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for being here 
this early. He has to travel to get here and so he had an early 
start.
    Mr. Chairman, every year this subcommittee holds a hearing 
to discuss Amtrak's budget, and this year the focus of the 
hearing is somewhat different. The title if this hearing--
Amtrak's Future--may imply that Amtrak's future is in question. 
I would like to tell you what it would mean if Amtrak were no 
more. If Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, it is not hard to predict 
what would happen in my State and throughout the Northeast.
    Out of all the States in the Nation, New Jersey currently 
has the highest density of vehicles on its roads. We do not 
have the space or the money or public backing to expand our 
existing 6- and 12-lane highways or to build all new ones. But 
if there were no Amtrak, at least 18,000 more cars a day would 
be driving on New Jersey's roads.
    How can we explain to those regularly driving these roads--
trucking companies, commuters, business travelers, tourists--
why an additional 18,000 cars will be crowding onto these 
already congested roads? In a region where people waste more 
than 2 million hours in traffic every day, this would be 
unbearable.
    In the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region, cutting 
back Amtrak service would cause nothing less than a major 
crisis. According to the Journal of Commerce, without Amtrak 
there would be an immediate need for 10 tunnels under the 
Hudson River between North Jersey and Manhattan--you may as 
well pave it over--at a cost of--would you listen--of $3.5 
billion each; and 20 new highway lanes in New York City. Talk 
about congestion. As for the broader impact, there would be an 
additional 27,000 cars daily on the highway between Boston and 
New York.
    So far I have just been talking about highway congestion. 
Amtrak also carries one-half of the combined air-rail market 
between Boston and New York, and when intermediate cities are 
included Amtrak's share of the air-rail market rises to 70 
percent. Without Amtrak, we will need to squeeze an additional 
7,500 fully-booked 757's in our already congested skies every 
year, 7,500 new flights.
    Right now there is an urgent reprogramming request that we 
heard, Mr. Chairman, from FAA to replace aging computers and 
radar equipment which often falter. Our aviation system simply 
cannot handle thousands of additional planes in our skies, and 
these thousands of additional planes would cause delays all 
across our country. There would be no area of significant 
traffic that would be spared from delays as a result of this 
congestion that we would be creating in the Northeast.

                    Commuter's Dependence on Amtrak

    We have seen extraordinary growth and success in other 
corridors throughout the country. The west coast region 
accounted for nearly 70 percent of Amtrak's systemwide 
ridership increases for fiscal year 1997. The California 
commuter system, which serves over 8 million riders a year, has 
demonstrated more than 25 percent growth in passenger service. 
The Texas Eagle, which goes from Chicago through Texas and on 
to Los Angeles, surpassed its prior year's performance in just 
one quarter. The ridership on the Empire Builder from Chicago 
to Seattle has shown a 65-percent increase in just 1 year.
    No area of the country would be exempt from the enormous 
inconvenience and cost of delays. If Amtrak disappears 
tomorrow, we better be ready to shell out the billions of 
dollars that will be needed to lay the roadbed, build more 
airports, and fund air traffic equipment. One thing I think is 
going to be awfully hard to find and that is more space in the 
skies.
    Amtrak is a national passenger rail service. It provides 
important service in areas of the country that are not as 
congested as other corridors. In many cases, Amtrak provides 
residents of small rural towns with their only form of 
intercity transportation. In fact, this subcommittee heard 
testimony just weeks ago from the GAO pointing out that recent 
trends in airline competition have meant the significant loss 
or elimination of quality air service at affordable prices to 
many small and medium-sized cities in many different regions of 
the country.
    Each year some 22 million passengers depend on Amtrak for 
transportation between urban centers and rural locations. 
Amtrak provides service in 44 of the 50 States. Life without 
Amtrak is simply not an option, not for me and not for millions 
of others across the country. And as the past year has shown, 
it is not an option favored by the majority of Congress or the 
administration either.

                      TRA and Reform Act Necessary

    Just last August, Congress passed and the President signed 
into law the Taxpayer Reform Act [TRA], which provides $2.3 
billion in tax credits for Amtrak to invest in high-yield 
capital projects. This investment is essential to Amtrak's 
success. It will enable Amtrak to generate additional revenues 
from innovations such as high-speed rail.
    A few short months later, in November, we enacted the 
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. In that act, Congress 
strongly recommitted itself to a national intercity rail 
passenger system and provided reforms to operate more like a 
business and the funding to success.
    These two acts, the TRA and the Reform Act, did not 
diminish in any way the responsibilities that lie on this 
subcommittee to continue to fund Amtrak's needs. To the 
contrary, this legislation, that is championed by broad 
bipartisan majorities, calls on this subcommittee to 
appropriate $1.058 billion out of this subcommittee for fiscal 
year 1999.
    Now, all we need to do now is to fulfill the commitments 
that Congress made when it approved Amtrak's reauthorization 
bill. As provided in that legislation, we must give Amtrak time 
to have a fighting chance. Amtrak has revised its business plan 
to account for developments over the past few months. It will 
conduct a market analysis of its route structure and its 
national system, making strategic decisions based on passenger 
needs. It will move ahead with a new board of directors charged 
with clear goals specified in the reauthorization bill.
    As we consider Amtrak's needs, we must remember that every 
other mode of transportation needs and receives substantial 
Federal subsidies. Amtrak is no different. Spending Federal 
dollars on Amtrak is a critical investment in this age of 
traffic-clogged highways, airport congestion, and pollution 
controls. Train travel is one of the safest modes and rail is 
one of the most energy-efficient, helping to limit the 
country's dependence on foreign oil.
    But while hundreds of billions of dollars are spent every 
decade on highway and airport improvements, a mere fraction is 
spent on the country's rail system. In fact, we spend less per 
year on Amtrak than even Bolivia invests in its national rail 
system. Germany has decided to invest nearly $70 billion on 
what is already an excellent rail system in a country a 
fraction the size of the United States.
    What have we done? Over the past 15 years we have increased 
spending on highways by 73 percent, aviation by 170 percent, 
while we have cut Amtrak's funding by 62 percent.
    We need Amtrak to reduce congestion on our highways and in 
our skies. The Congress and the President have demonstrated 
clear support for Amtrak as a national system and support 
continued Federal appropriations.
    In the past we have underfunded this important system and 
instead we have favored the other modes. Amtrak is operating 
under substantial challenges to meet strict business goals, and 
I believe Amtrak is up to them. The least we can do is to 
provide them the funds that we promised and give them a 
fighting chance to succeed.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for allowing me to make 
this opening remark. We now have our witnesses here.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Roth, we welcome you and Senator 
Biden, and also Senator Baucus, who is now coming in, to the 
hearing. Your written statement will be made a part of the 
record in its entirety. You may proceed as you wish.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROTH

    Senator Roth. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby and 
Senator Lautenberg.
    Let me begin by saying that I would like to underscore what 
Senator Lautenberg has just said, both from the standpoint of 
the importance of securing the funds that have been promised in 
the past and, second, the critical importance of the rail 
system, particularly to the Northeastern area as well as the 
western coast, but to the entire Nation. I cannot emphasize too 
much how important it is that we have a viable rail system. For 
us to lose that in my region of the country would be, as 
Senator Lautenberg has said, a total disaster.
    We depend upon it. It is critically important. It is not 
only a safe manner of traveling, but, as Senator Lautenberg has 
pointed out, it helps better utilization of energy, it creates 
a better environment. All of these are of critical importance.
    But Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that, as 
you well know, one of my top priorities has been to create a 
dedicated source of capital funding for Amtrak. Congress has 
voted time and again that capital funding is critical to 
Amtrak's survival, and for that reason a tax provision was 
included in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to provide Amtrak 
with a tax refund of $2.3 billion for capital expenses.
    The bottom line is that Amtrak desperately needs capital. 
According to GAO, Amtrak must have the capital funding that was 
provided in the TRA as well as what is provided through the 
normal appropriations process. Without both, Amtrak faces 
bankruptcy.
    Last year, because of the tax refund for Amtrak, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee eliminated Amtrak's general capital 
appropriation for fiscal year 1998. I am here today to urge you 
not to repeat last year's action, but to provide the necessary 
capital funding for Amtrak. As you know, the $2.3 billion 
capital fund for Amtrak was intended to supplement, not 
supplant, annual capital appropriations.
    Amtrak recently received its first installment of this 
refund, about $1.1 billion, and this is the first time, I would 
point out to the panel, in Amtrak's 27-year history that it has 
had a secure and reliable source of capital to allow it to do 
long-term planning, make high-yield investments, leverage 
external and private funds, and otherwise act like a business.
    Amtrak will finally be allowed to focus on the future, 
instead of constantly worrying about bankruptcy. As GAO has 
testified, adequate capital funding is the most important way 
capital can help Amtrak achieve operating self-sufficiency.
    As Mr. Ladd states in his written testimony, the more you 
capitalize the less you subsidize. He points out that the great 
majority of Metra's capital program is prioritized based on the 
ability of the investment to reduce operating costs. With the 
release of the $1.1 billion, Amtrak will for the first time be 
able to do that.
    Amtrak has testified that the company will need $4 billion 
in capital funds to attain operating self-sufficiency by 2002, 
and my original proposal would have provided that. But last 
year's balanced budget agreement provided $2.3 billion, one-
half of the necessary level of funding to allow Amtrak to 
achieve self-sufficiency by 2002.
    Again, I emphasize that the $2.3 billion supplements but 
does not replace the needed annual capital appropriation. This 
capital fund was established to allow Amtrak to invest in new 
equipment and bring high-speed rail to the Northeast corridor. 
If Amtrak does not have adequate capital funding, the company 
will have to use the Amtrak capital fund to pay for ordinary 
maintenance expenses, and this is not what was intended with 
the $2.3 billion. It must be used to pay for high-speed rail 
and other capital-intensive projects to help the company 
improve its financial situation.
    I am afraid if the additional fund is not provided we will 
soon be exactly where we were last year, wondering if Amtrak 
will survive. But again I want to emphasize the importance of 
providing Amtrak with the necessary funds, as this is a source 
or a means of transportation for which there is no adequate 
substitute.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Roth, we thank you for appearing.
    Senator Specter has joined us.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR SPECTER

    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a 
word or two.
    I stopped in early to pay my respects to this very 
distinguished panel. I see two-thirds of the panel on the 
Metroliner with regularity. They have the shorter ride, from 
Wilmington. I am glad to see Senator Baucus join my two 
distinguished colleagues from Delaware, Senator Roth and 
Senator Biden.
    The issue of funding Amtrak is a very important one, which 
I fully support, having seen its impact not only on the Boston 
to Washington run, but in Pennsylvania generally. I will have 
more to say.
    I will be back, Mr. Chairman. I must chair a hearing on 
Alzheimer's on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human 
Services, and Education. But we will have Mayor Rendell in a 
little later today, and I appreciate the opportunity to say 
these few words at this time.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Specter. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Biden.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
            DELAWARE
    Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this is the Tenn-Tom for us. This is a big 
deal, and I hope that, as Barry Goldwater used to say, in your 
heart I hope you know we are right. And I hope, just as some of 
us--I was just riding on the Tenn-Tom----
    Senator Shelby. I want to know if Amtrak was on time today.
    Senator Biden. Amtrak was on time, on time performance. 9 
o'clock it arrived. It took me 11 minutes to get here from the 
train. It was on time. I rode down.
    I visited your beautiful State this weekend to visit where 
all that Delaware money went in the Tennessee River Valley 
project on the Tenn-Tom.
    Senator Shelby. Not enough, though.
    Senator Biden. Not enough. And I voted--I just want to 
remind you, I voted for your efforts, and I hope you will see 
in your heart the wisdom of, just as you need--and I mean this 
sincerely. The needs of your State are very different than the 
needs of mine, and one of the great benefits, it seems to me, 
of this great country is we have literally, not figuratively, 
always supplanted the needs of one community that the other did 
not possess, and when we could help we did.
    Just that is a little aside. But by the way, what a 
magnificent part of the world. What a magnificent part of the 
world.
    Senator Shelby. You should have stayed longer. I hope you 
spent some money down there.
    Senator Biden. Well, I did spend some money there. And I 
want you to know, if it was any closer I would try to spend 
some money to buy a lot down there. It is absolutely 
magnificent. It is amazing what the Federal Government can do 
when it wants to help, is it not?
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
    Senator Biden. And I mean this sincerely.
    Senator Shelby. When it has good leadership.
    Senator Biden. It does have good leadership, and I am 
counting on your leadership in helping us on this one, too.
    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here with my colleague 
Bill Roth and my friend from Montana, who has always been 
helpful as well, and always happy to be with--up to a moment 
ago you were kind of surrounded by Amtrak riders here--Senator 
Lautenberg, who has been our leader in this effort.

                          Amtrak's Importance

    Mr. Chairman, I should say at the outset I was a little 
surprised, and hope it will change before it is over, that you 
are not going to get a chance to hear from Amtrak management 
here. I know the GAO and the inspector general of the 
Transportation Department will probably give us a fairly 
accurate financial description of Amtrak's condition and a 
pretty accurate--not a pretty inaccurate, but I suspect dry, 
recitation of its business plan. But I hope at some point that 
you are able to hear from the actual management about how it is 
working.
    You know, this morning Amtrak is a little bit like 
Huckleberry Finn, who finds himself looking in on his own 
funeral. They were not invited and they know they are not dead, 
but lots of folks are acting like it is time to bury them, and 
bury them, Mr. Chairman, because we seem to be here to hear 
extreme--excuse me--to examine alternatives to Amtrak.
    I am not sure why we are examining alternatives to Amtrak. 
But it was less than 5 months ago the U.S. Senate passed the 
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 by a unanimous 
vote, authorizing over $5 billion in appropriations for Amtrak 
over the next 5 years. The reauthorization legislation was 
authorized by Senator Hutchison of Texas and signed by the 
President of the United States in December, and it was heralded 
by both parties and both sides of the Hill, by folks ranging 
from Senator McCain, who does not like Amtrak very much, to 
Transportation Secretary Slater, for providing comprehensive 
changes and empowering Amtrak to meet its own financial goals.
    They noted both the long-overdue reforms, was the quote I 
heard all the time, and the long-overdue capital investment 
that enactment of the bill would trigger.
    That authorization bill provides over $1 billion for Amtrak 
this year and it was passed by unanimous consent. Given the 
support of that reform bill, one might expect that Amtrak would 
not have too much trouble getting close to that level of 
appropriations. I thought life was going to be a little bit 
easier this time, but for 25 years in a row it looks like it is 
not.
    Passage of the authorization meant the release of the $2.3 
billion of new capital funds from the Taxpayer Relief Act which 
the Senate passed last year, and some of us, Mr. Chairman, 
thought we might have a year or two where there would not be 
another struggle for funding. But here we are, the same Senate 
that passed the bill without a single Senator objecting, just 
months later considering alternatives to Amtrak before the 
reform bill has even had a chance to work.
    Mr. Chairman, everyone knows Amtrak just finished one of 
the most difficult years in its history. But it is, as a 
consequence of that, in a more stable position commercially, 
operationally, and financially than it has been for a long 
time. It has improved its bottom line by more than $300 million 
over the past 3 years through aggressive revenue development 
and cost-cutting actions. Passenger revenues have increased by 
more than $100 million annually over the last 2 years and 
ridership is also up.
    All this has been accomplished over a 3-year period when 
Federal operating support has declined by nearly 50 percent. 
Imagine what Amtrak could do if it received adequate funding.
    We provided Amtrak with a new lease on life with the new 
capital funds, but, as Senators Hutchison and Lott have 
forcefully reminded us, those funds were intended to 
supplement, not replace, capital provided in the annual 
appropriations process. Amtrak has consistently said it needs 
$4 billion over 5 years and the new capital fund in the tax 
bill last year provides more than one-half of that.
    Mr. Chairman, I honestly believe it would be extremely 
short-sighted to fail to provide the balance of that funding. 
If Amtrak cannot preserve the new capital fund for capital 
investments with high rates of return and instead is forced to 
use it for its daily survival, 2 or 3 years down the road from 
now it will be used up.
    The Amtrak reform bill aims at improving Amtrak's business 
practices, but we are demanding that Amtrak consume its own 
seed corn, Mr. Chairman, instead of following sound business 
practices that it would prefer to follow. And we're going to 
hear on the floor, we're going to hear, I guarantee you, if the 
committee is unable to fund it, appropriate the appropriate 
amounts of money, that: Look at this irresponsible board; they 
went out and used up all this capital; they used up their 
capital and they did this to supplement their operating budget, 
and look at the trouble they are in; and they do not know how 
to run a railroad.
    So after they consume their seed corn, what then? The 
financial performance of the company will not be improved and 
it will be, there we go again. We will be exactly where we were 
last year, wondering if Amtrak is going to survive.
    I do not want to be there again, Mr. Chairman. This 
railroad is too valuable a part of America's transportation 
network. And the President's budget proposal request of $621 
million for capital in fiscal year 1999 is a bare minimum. It 
is too low in my opinion. By itself, given Amtrak's needs and 
its history of underfunding, this request is the absolute bare 
minimum.
    I would add, to state the obvious, Mr. Chairman, it is 
clearly important to my region of the country. It is clearly 
important along that so-called megalopolis all the way from 
Boston to Richmond, and I would argue all the way down the 
coast, and on the west coast, and more important there than it 
is in other parts of the country. I understand that, I 
understand that. But it is also vitally important to the 
country.
    I notice every time that we go to shut it down and anybody 
is going to go on strike, there is a provision in the law that 
says that it is a national emergency. So what happens is we 
invoke a national emergency, because everybody recognizes it 
would be an absolute blithering disaster for the American 
economy if Amtrak went on strike.
    What happens if Amtrak shuts down? If passengers fully fund 
the President's--excuse me. If Congress fully funds the 
President's request, it will cost this committee significantly 
less this year to fund Amtrak than it spent last year, since 
capital has more than a 50-percent lower outlay rate than it 
did last year.

                      Amtrak Is Not Funded Enough

    Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine why we would not fully fund 
it. We passed two bills last year, the authorization and the 
Tax Reform Act with Amtrak's new capital fund. Together they 
give Amtrak a few years of adequate funding, after which Amtrak 
faces some very serious consequences if they do not make 
measurable progress toward operating self-sufficiency.
    But those few years of adequate funding assumed that we 
would provide adequate annual appropriations in addition to the 
new capital fund. It seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman, if 
you really want Amtrak to reach operational self-sufficiency--
not just you; I use that in an editorial sense, you; I mean 
everyone--and no longer be a drain on the taxpayers' 
pocketbooks as we constantly hear, then we have to give them 
the chance that Congress approved last year: 5 years of 
adequate funding, subject to strenuous oversight and review.
    That means, at a minimum, providing the $621 million 
requested in the President's budget. I want to point out, that 
amount is a little more than one-half of the $1.058 billion 
that was authorized, so we are nowhere near living up to our 
commitment. But Amtrak has said they can make it on that 
amount.
    Mr. Chairman, again I do not know why Amtrak is not here at 
the hearing testifying on its future, but on their behalf I 
would like to urge the committee in the strongest possible 
terms to provide the requested level of capital funding. It 
seems to me a deal is a deal is a deal.
    Russell Long used to say--I will never forget going up to 
him on the floor when he was chairman of the Finance Committee 
when I first got here and I said, Mr. Chairman, and I was 
trying to make a case. He put his arm around me and pulled me 
in to him and he said: Joe, let me tell you something; as my 
Uncle Earl used to say, I ain't for no deal I ain't in on.
    Well, everybody is in on this deal. We are all in on the 
deal. We all signed on. We all made a promise. And Mr. 
Chairman, I do not know why we cannot follow up on it.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, last year the Presidential 
Emergency Board told us that men and women working at Amtrak 
deserve a raise, and it is easy to see why. An Amtrak 
electrician is paid $16.10 compared to $23.10 paid for the same 
job on the Long Island Railroad. The Amtrak lineman earns 
$16.93 an hour compared to $21.91 on Metro North.
    If the deal that the administration, Amtrak, and the 
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees struck last year 
becomes the pattern for all Amtrak workers, it will achieve 
substantial savings, Mr. Chairman, savings from productivity 
gains, from increased efficiency, that will add up to $56 
million a year over the next 5 years. Nevertheless, to bring 
Amtrak's pay rates up to where they can attract and keep 
skilled workers in the competition with other rail employees, 
Amtrak needs an additional $38 million a year over the next 5 
years. That small amount is not only a fair deal for the men 
and women of Amtrak, who have gone too long without a raise, or 
a contract, I might add, it is also a good deal for Amtrak and 
the American people, that will get both the increased 
productivity and secure a better, more stable work force.
    That is my case here, Mr. President--Mr. Chairman. Let us 
provide the funding Amtrak needs and live up to the new 
standards set by last year's reform bill. Let us not 
shortchange Amtrak's capital needs just at the moment when they 
finally get a fund for long-term high-return capital investment 
every railroad runs on. And let us make sure, Mr. Chairman, 
that Amtrak has the funds needed to meet its obligations to the 
men and women who maintain and run those trains.
    Like Huck Finn, Mr. Chairman, Amtrak's been at the brink of 
trouble for years, but it is not dead yet. Reasonable steps can 
make it a better, healthier, more efficient part of our 
transportation system.
    Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate your listening to me. I 
understand we have a slightly different view on this, but I 
really and truly hope you will consider the consequences of 
failure to fund Amtrak for a part of the world that in the past 
has been there, I would argue, for your part of the world.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Biden, for the record I just wanted 
to share with you that I did vote for the Amtrak reform bill.
    Senator Biden. I understand you did. That is why I am 
counting on you now, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. And some of my concerns, not all--but if 
you can just envision, since you have been to the South and 
been to my home State--if you can envision--the Amtrak going 
just from Atlanta to New Orleans. It goes to Birmingham, 
Atlanta, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, my hometown, Meridian, 
Mississippi, Senator Lott's area, Hattiesburg, MS, and New 
Orleans every other day. Not very efficient.
    Now, we have one of the fastest growing areas in the 
Nation, the South, as you well know. We do not have much 
intercity rail passengers there. Senator Lott and I have talked 
about it. I am sure you also have talked to him about it.
    Senator Biden. I have, Mr. Chairman.

                          Amtrak's Importance

    Senator Shelby. We have those concerns because our people 
do not believe for the most part that they are getting a fair 
shake as far as Amtrak is concerned. I know Amtrak is important 
from here all the way up to Boston and it works. It works 
there. And I am sure it works in some other areas of the 
country. Perhaps it could work better, perhaps not, in areas 
like ours.
    But for us to support it politically, it is going to have 
to turn around some. It cannot just be a regional thing, 
because I think you understand where I am coming from.
    Senator Biden. I do, Mr. Chairman. And I know Senator 
Baucus is here and he is the ranking member of an important 
committee.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
    Senator Biden. And I do not want to keep him. But with his 
indulgence and yours, if I could take 2 minutes to make a very 
brief response. Mr. Chairman, I think we have built in our own 
demise by insisting that Amtrak have to be self-sufficient 
nationwide. No passenger rail service in the world is nor is it 
likely to be.
    What we have done, we have undercut the support for Amtrak 
by not adequately funding. For example, there used to be a 
train that went through Montana.
    Senator Baucus. Still is.
    Senator Biden. It still does, but not as frequently as it 
did. And one of the things that happens is the Governor of 
Montana told me that it was worth $6 million a year toward the 
ski and the recreational industry and it cost, what, several 
hundred thousand dollars to run it through there. But when 
Amtrak is faced with a dilemma--it is just like when I was on 
the county council. The one thing I learned early on as a local 
councilman, that when you try to deal with a rapid transit 
system or a mass transit system and you to make savings, if you 
cut one of the 20 lines you lose 10 percent, not 5 percent, of 
the ridership. In this case we lose, not 10 percent, but we 
lose 25 percent of the support in this body.
    I think the future should be rail service nationwide, Mr. 
Chairman. I think we are making serious mistakes. But I 
appreciate your dilemma. But like I said, Mr. Chairman, if you 
think it is hard to explain Amtrak, which at least goes through 
your State, not nearly enough----
    Senator Shelby. Through my hometown.
    Senator Biden. Imagine, imagine explaining the Tennessee 
River project in Selbyville, DE. I mean, it ain't easy. Imagine 
doing that.
    But we do it because we are one Nation. And I think you--
well, never tell another man what his constituency thinks, but 
I hope they think it is worthwhile.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator. We will insert your 
prepared statement in the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Senator Biden
    Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to 
discuss an issue you all know is near and dear to me: the future of 
Amtrak.
    I'm here to say that Amtrak has a future, Mr. Chairman, but only if 
it receives the support it needs--like every other rail system in the 
world--to fund its long-term capital needs, and to provide the fair pay 
that can attract and keep the best workers.
    And it's always a pleasure to appear with my good friend and fellow 
Amtrak rider, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Bill 
Roth.
    I am also pleased to see my good friend, the ranking member on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Max Baucus.
    When I got here this morning, I looked around for some familiar 
faces from Amtrak's management. I couldn't find any, Mr. Chairman.
    I have to admit, I am somewhat surprised to be sitting at a hearing 
on ``Amtrak's future'' only to find that Amtrak wasn't invited to 
testify on their own future.
    Mr. Chairman, it is certainly your decision to make, but it seems 
to me that we would want to hear from Amtrak representatives about 
where they are and where they're going.
    The GAO and the inspector general at the Transportation Department 
can probably give us a fairly accurate description of Amtrak's 
financial condition, or a dry recitation of its business plan, but they 
can't tell us where the railroad is heading, what its future plans are, 
and what Amtrak's management is thinking.
    So I have to say, I'm more than a little surprised, and frankly, 
disappointed that representatives of the men and women who work at and 
manage Amtrak have not been invited to testify on their own future.
    This morning, Amtrak is a little like Huckleberry Finn, who finds 
himself looking in on his own funeral. They weren't invited, and they 
know they aren't dead, but a lot of folks are acting as if it's time to 
bury them.
    Bury them, Mr. Chairman, because we seem to be here to examine 
``alternatives'' to Amtrak.
    But it was less than five months ago that the United States Senate 
passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 by unanimous 
consent, authorizing over $5 billion in appropriations for Amtrak over 
the next five years.
    The reauthorization legislation was authored by Senator Hutchison 
of Texas and signed by President Clinton in December. It was heralded 
by both parties, on both sides of the Hill, by folks ranging from 
Senator McCain to Transportation Secretary Slater, for providing 
comprehensive changes and empowering Amtrak to meet its financial 
goals.
    They noted both the ``long overdue reforms'' and the ``long overdue 
capital investment'' that enactment of the bill would trigger.
    That authorization bill provides over $1 billion for Amtrak this 
year--and it was passed by unanimous consent. Given the support for 
that reform bill, one might expect that Amtrak wouldn't have too much 
trouble getting close to that level of appropriations.
    I thought life was going to be easy for a while.
    Passage of the authorization meant release of the $2.3 billion in 
the new capital funds, from the Taxpayer Relief Act, that Bill Roth 
worked so hard to secure last year.
    Some of us, Mr. Chairman, thought we might have a year or two where 
there wouldn't be another struggle for Amtrak funding.
    But here we are--the same Senate that passed that bill--without one 
single Senator objecting--just months later, considering 
``alternatives'' to Amtrak before the reform bill has even had a chance 
to work.
    Mr. Chairman, everyone knows Amtrak just finished one of the most 
difficult years in its history, but it is in a more stable position--
commercially, operationally, and financially--than it has been in a 
very long time.
    It has improved its bottom line by more than $300 million over the 
past three years, through aggressive revenue development and cost 
cutting actions. Passenger revenues have increased by more than $100 
million annually over the past two years, and ridership is also up.
    All this has been accomplished over a three year period when 
Federal operating support has declined by nearly fifty percent. Imagine 
what Amtrak could do if they received adequate funding.
    We have provided Amtrak a new lease on life with the new capital 
funds--but as Senators Hutchison and Lott have forcefully reminded us, 
those funds are intended to supplement, not replace, capital provided 
in the annual appropriations process.
    Amtrak has consistently said it needs $4 billion over 5 years. The 
new capital fund in Senator Roth's tax bill last year provides more 
than half of that.
    Mr. Chairman, it would be extremely short-sighted to fail to 
provide the balance of that funding.
    If Amtrak cannot preserve the new capital fund for capital 
investments with high rates of return, and instead is forced to use it 
for daily survival, two or three years down the road that fund will be 
used up.
    The Amtrak reform bill aims at improving Amtrak's business 
practices, but we are demanding that Amtrak consume its seed corn, Mr. 
Chairman, instead of following the sound business practices that it 
would prefer.
    And then what? The financial performance of the company will not be 
improved, and there we go again--we will be exactly where we were last 
year, wondering if Amtrak is going to survive.
    I don't want to be there again. This railroad is too valuable a 
part of America's transportation network.
    The President's budget proposal requests $621 million in capital 
for fiscal year 1999.
    By itself, given the Amtrak's needs and its history of under 
funding, this request is the bare minimum to keep Amtrak's head above 
water.
    If the Congress fully funds the President's request it will cost 
this committee significantly less this year to fund Amtrak than it 
spent last year, since capital has a more than 50 percent lower outlay 
rate.
    Mr. Chairman, I can't imagine why we wouldn't fully fund it.
    We passed two bills last year--the authorization and the Tax Reform 
Act with Amtrak's new capital fund.
    Together, they give Amtrak a few years of adequate funding, after 
which Amtrak faces some very serious consequences if they don't make 
measurable progress toward operating self-sufficiency.
    But those few years of adequate funding assumed that we would 
provide adequate annual appropriations in addition to the new capital 
fund.
    It seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman: If you really want 
Amtrak to reach operating self-sufficiency and no longer be ``a drain'' 
on the taxpayer's pocketbooks, then we have to give them the chance 
that Congress approved last year--five years of adequate funding, 
subject to strenuous oversight and review.
    That means at a minimum providing the $621 million requested in the 
President's budget. I want to point out that amount is a little more 
than one-half of the $1.058 billion that was authorized--so we are 
nowhere near to living up to our commitment. But Amtrak has said they 
can make it on that amount.
    Mr. Chairman, again, I don't know why Amtrak isn't here at a 
hearing testifying on their future, but on their behalf, I'd like to 
urge the committee in the strongest possible terms to provide the 
requested level of capital funding.
    And I want to conclude here today, Mr. Chairman, with my first 
priority when it comes to Amtrak--our obligation to the men and women 
who work there. Failure to fully fund Amtrak will pit that obligation 
against all of the other pressing needs Amtrak faces.
    Last year, a Presidential Emergency Board told us that the men and 
women working on Amtrak deserve a raise, and it's easy to see why.
    An Amtrak electrician is paid $16.10 an hour, compared to the 
$23.10 paid for the same job on the Long Island Railroad. An Amtrak 
catenary lineman earns $16.93 an hour, compared to $21.91 on Metro 
North. If the deal that the administration, Amtrak, and the Brotherhood 
of Maintenance of Way Employees struck last year becomes the pattern 
for all Amtrak workers, it will achieve substantial savings, Mr. 
Chairman--savings from productivity gains from increased efficiency 
that will add up to $56 million over the next five years.
    Nevertheless, to bring Amtrak pay rates up to where they can 
attract and keep skilled workers in competition with other rail 
employers, Amtrak will need an additional $38 million a year over the 
next five years.
    That small amount is not only a fair deal for the men and women of 
Amtrak who have gone too long without a raise--or a contract, I might 
add.
    It is also a good deal for Amtrak, that will get both the increased 
productivity and secure a better, more stable work force.
    That's my case here this morning Mr. President. Let's provide the 
funding Amtrak needs to live up to the new standards set in last year's 
reform bill.
    Let's not shortchange Amtrak's capital needs just at the moment 
when they finally get a fund for the long-term, high-return, capital 
investments every railroad runs on.
    And let's make sure Amtrak has the funds needed to meet its 
obligations to the men and women who maintain and run those trains.
    Like Huck Finn, Mr. Chairman, Amtrak has been at the brink of 
trouble for years, but it is not dead yet. Reasonable steps can make it 
a better, healthier, more efficient part of our transportation system.
    Again, thanks for the opportunity to appear here this morning, Mr. 
Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
    Senator Shelby. Senator Baucus.
    Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am here to not only encourage the committee to fully fund 
Amtrak, but to explain that another part of the country in 
addition to the Northeast corridor passionately believes in 
Amtrak just as much as the northeasterners do. Let me explain 
why.
    If you look at a map of Montana, first, the distance across 
Montana is the same as from Washington to Chicago. Our 
population density is about six people per square mile. I know 
the density of the State of New Jersey, my good friend Senator 
Lautenberg, is about 1,000 people per square mile.
    We have an interstate that goes across southern Montana 
east-west. Northern Montana does not have an interstate, and it 
is quite a distance between southern Montana and northern 
Montana, several hundred miles. In between, basically the 
freemen, the militia you have read about. But across northern 
Montana is a highway we call the Highline. It just, it is an 
ordinary two-lane highway, and it is also Amtrak.
    So the people who are close to--and by Montana standards 
that is a couple or 300 miles--that are close to the Highline 
or Amtrak vitally depend upon Amtrak going across northern 
Montana from Chicago to Seattle and back. There are 12 stops in 
Montana. I could tell you, Mr. Chairman, that a few years ago 
when Amtrak cut back from daily service to four times a week, 
there was an outrage. Not as many people showed up in Montana 
on my doorstep as might, say, on yours in Delaware or Las 
Vegas, but the intensity and the passion and also the size of 
the number of people was amazing to me. I just did not really 
fully appreciate just how much people depended upon Amtrak.
    It is not only themselves to go across the country for one 
reason or another, but also it is supplies. If you are a farmer 
or a rancher and your combine breaks down or your tractor 
breaks down, you need to get parts right away. We do not have a 
lot of inventory in some of those Montana communities. So you 
have got to get it quick, and obviously during harvest you just 
cannot wait. You have got to get that part right away.
    Add to that tourism. We have got a lot of tourism, winter 
and summer: winter, ski at Big Sky, Whitefish, MT; they come 
from both ends of the country, from Midwest, and also from the 
west coast; and in summer it is Glacier Park. Amtrak is a 
gorgeous trip through Glacier Park. It is along the Marias 
River and up over Marias Pass and on down toward Flathead 
Valley. It is just wonderful.
    All I am saying is that we desperately hope that the 
committee does keep funding Amtrak, not only for the 
northeasterners and Alabamans and maybe also into the Las Vegas 
area, to say nothing of New Jersey, but in our part of the 
country as well.
    I might say, seeing Senator Lautenberg here reminded me of 
this little story. I invited him to Montana not too many years 
ago to help him get a little sense of what our needs and 
problems are. We took off in a charter plane late one night 
from Great Falls, MT, over the mountains to Callesville. We had 
been up in the air maybe about 10 minutes or so and the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey suddenly turned to me, 
astonished, just aghast. He said: Max, where are the lights? 
Where are the people?
    He got a sense just that we do not have a lot of lights, we 
do not have a lot of people, and transportation is critical.
    We are dependent upon the highways, I think, as much as any 
State. We have more miles per capita in Montana than any State 
in the Nation, more Federal highways per capita than any State 
in the Nation. Now, there are some parts, again in the 
northern, the northern tier across northern Montana, that do 
not have an interstate, do not have any four-lanes, and these 
people just desperately need Amtrak.
    So I am just here to urge you to do what you can. Thank 
you.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Reid, do you have an opening 
statement?

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID

    Senator Reid. Yes; very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
very much.
    We hear a lot about planes and automobiles, but we should 
include in that trains: planes, trains, and automobiles. We do 
a lot of subsidies for highways, we do a lot of subsidies for 
airports and the air traffic system in this country, but we 
seem to have just neglected trains. And for those who--well, 
the fact is for distances up to 300 miles we have got to get 
back to some type of rail traffic.
    I would say to my two distinguished friends here at the 
podium today that I am glad to see that in the ISTEA bill we 
have about $1 billion for developing magnetic levitation. But 
until that comes, we have to rely on Amtrak.
    I am disappointed, and I am sure that this oversight will 
be corrected in the future, but I would hope that in the next 
hearings we have someone from Amtrak here to talk about 
Amtrak's future. The GAO and the inspector general can give us 
a fairly accurate description of the financial condition, but 
they cannot tell us where the railroad is heading and what its 
future plans are and what Amtrak's management is thinking.
    These oversight agencies and proponents of privatization do 
not have a responsibility to keep the trains running, with some 
23,000 employees, 23 million intercity riders, and another 220 
million Northeast corridor passengers. Amtrak is doing that and 
has done that while being chronically undercapitalized for 
almost three decades.
    Everyone knows Amtrak has just finished one of the most 
difficult years in its history, but it is in a more stable 
position commercially, operationally, and financially than it 
has been in a very long time. Amtrak has seen its operating 
support cut in half over the past 3 years. It has managed to 
take $300 million out of the bottom line over that same period, 
and passenger revenues have increased by more than $100 
million.
    Last week Amtrak received its first installment of the 
Taxpayer Relief Act, about $1.1 billion. This will be the first 
time in almost 30 years that it will have a secure and reliable 
source of capital.
    Mr. Chairman, I am particularly interested in Amtrak's plan 
to bring a convenient and reliable daily service between 
southern California and southern Nevada. Over a third of Las 
Vegas tourism is derived from southern California. Hotel rooms 
in Las Vegas are expanding at a monumental rate. On one corner 
we have on the Strip, at the corner of Flamingo and the Strip, 
we have more hotel rooms on just those four corners than is in 
the whole city of San Francisco.
    The airlines have limited capacity. They do not have enough 
airplanes, literally--they are being manufactured--to bring 
more into Las Vegas. The I-15 route is totally congested. 
Therefore, we badly need this new Amtrak venture.
    We have in this venture, we have the resort industry, local 
businesses, the train manufacturer, and Amtrak all interested 
in participating in this trial. I am not going to go into more 
detail, Mr. Chairman, other than to say this is something I 
think we need to be concerned about, namely train passenger 
travel in the United States.

                           Prepared Statement

    I would ask unanimous consent that the entire content of my 
statement be placed in the record as if given in its entirety.
    Senator Shelby. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Reid
    Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. As you know, several of us are required 
to attend other hearings this morning and will be unable to stay for 
much of this morning's meetings. With your permission, I would like to 
make a brief statement and then submit a series of questions for the 
record.
                            where's amtrak?
    I'm wondering, how we can have a hearing on ``Amtrak's Future'' and 
Amtrak isn't even in the room?
    The GAO and IG can probably give us a fairly accurate description 
of Amtrak's financial condition, or a dry recitation of its business 
plan, but they can't tell us where the railroad is heading, what its 
future plans are, and what Amtrak's management is thinking.
    Nothing against these two federal oversight agencies, and the 
individuals who have found Amtrak wanting and are proposing 
``alternatives'', but they certainly haven't had the experience of 
trying to keep a national rail system running.
    These oversight agencies and proponents of privatization don't have 
a responsibility to keep the trains running for 23,000 Amtrak 
employees, 23 million intercity riders and another 220 million 
Northeast Corridor passengers. Amtrak is doing that and has done that, 
while being chronically undercapitalized, for 27 years.
    So I have to say at the outset, I'm more than a little disappointed 
that Amtrak has not been invited to testify at a hearing on its own 
future.
                          financial situation
    Everyone knows Amtrak just finished one of the most difficult years 
in its history, but it is in a more stable position--commercially, 
operationally, and financially--than it has been in a very long time.
    Amtrak has seen its operating support cut in half over the past 
three years, yet has managed to take $300 million out of the bottom 
line over that same time period. Passenger revenues have increased by 
more than $100 million annually over the past two years, and ridership 
is also up.
    Last week Amtrak received its first installment of the Taxpayer 
Relief Act (TRA) funds--about $1.1 billion. This will be the first time 
in its twenty-seven year history that it will have a secure and 
reliable source of capital to allow it to do long-term planning, make 
high yield investments, leverage external and private funds, and 
otherwise act like a business. It will finally be allowed to focus on a 
future instead of constantly worrying about insolvency.
                             budget request
    Amtrak has consistently said that it requires $4 billion to attain 
operating self-sufficiency by 2002. The original proposal under 
consideration in Congress over the last two years was to provide Amtrak 
with one \1/2\ cent of the gasoline fuel tax.
    The TRA is providing $2.2 billion, or about one-half of the 
necessary level of funding. The balance needs to be provided by 
Congress over the next 5 years through the annual appropriations 
process. The TRA is intended to supplement, not supplant, capital 
provided in the appropriations process.
    Not providing the balance of capital would be extremely short-
sighted. If Amtrak cannot preserve the TRA for high rate of return 
capital investment, and it instead is forced to use it for daily 
survival, two or three years down the road the TRA is used up, the 
financial performance of the company has not improved, and deja vu: We 
will be exactly where we were last year, wondering if Amtrak is going 
to survive.
    Amtrak and the Administration's budget proposal requests $621 
million in capital for fiscal year 1999, as well as the broader 
definition of eligible capital expenditures than transit and many other 
modes enjoy. If I understand it correctly, this is a win-win for 
everybody. If we fully fund the President's request it will cost the 
Committee significantly less this year to fund Amtrak than it spent 
last year, since capital has a more than 50 percent lower outlay rate.
    The proposal also allows Amtrak to meet its immediate cash needs 
while preserving the integrity of the TRA high for the rate of return 
investments which will enable it attain operating self-sufficiency by 
2002--the goal Congress has officially mandated.
    Why wouldn't we fully fund it?
    Last year we reaffirmed our support for Amtrak with enactment of 
the TRA. That commitment should be continued. With high speed rail 
starting in 1999, spinning off an estimated $150 million a year in 
profit, many of us believe Amtrak is going to make it. And we're 
looking for expansions in service.
                         los angeles-las vegas
    I'm particularly interested in Amtrak's plan to bring convenient 
and reliable daily service to the 340 miles Los Angeles to Las Vegas 
Corridor. Over \1/3\ of Las Vegas' tourism is derived from the Southern 
California basin. Hotel rooms in Las Vegas are expanding at a 
monumental rate: 14,000 new rooms are planned to be completed by 1998.
    The airlines have a limited capacity that just can't expand quickly 
enough to fill the growing hotel space. I-15 is totally congested and 
traffic an be reduced to a crawl, with several hour delays. There are 
more attractions, more places to stay, and an overall increase in 
tourists, yet people are arriving later and leaving earlier to avoid 
the rush.
    So a great deal of demand has grown for this service, particularly 
from the gaming community. Over the past 18 months I have been working 
with Amtrak and the gaming community on this unique and innovative 
project, that is projected to carry about 350,000 people annually.
    Gaming properties are purchasing blocks of seats for their 
clientele, at about $100 a seat, in blocks of 10,000. It will have to 
be at about 80 percent capacity to cover its operating costs, although 
additional revenue will be generated by things like on-board 
advertisement. TALGO, builders of the high speed ``tilt'' train, have 
committed to help support the service by dedicating one TALGO train to 
this 1-3 year trial.
    However, although most of the gaming properties are interested in 
supporting this trial venture, they have little interest in making 
long-term capital investments that will benefit other businesses. 
However, if Amtrak makes the $9 million capital investment in fiscal 
year 1998, it will leverage more than $30 million in operate support 
from the private gaming properties over the life of the (3 year) 
demonstration.
    So we have the gaming industry and local businesses and the train 
manufacturer and Amtrak all interested and participating in this trial. 
This is the type of innovative business venture Amtrak is turning to, 
and frankly, it's an excellent opportunity for them: 3:1 leveraging.
    And its an excellent opportunity for Nevada--increasing the number 
of tourists while decreasing congestion on the roads. And I don't think 
we'd have that many Las Vegas businesses interested and participating 
if there wasn't quite a bit of revenue potential for this service. This 
is the sort of thing Amtrak should be doing, and should be able to use 
the TRA funds to do.
    Last year the full Committee, in conference, zeroed out Amtrak's 
general capital request, on the basis that if it received the TRA 
funds--$2.2 billion--that was all that was needed. We can't allow that 
to happen again this year.
    It is clear that Amtrak's current and future economic health is 
based on adequate capital investment. I strongly support Amtrak's 
request for $621 million in fiscal year 1999 and I will work to ensure 
that it is funded.
                                panels:
               privatization (2nd panel) kiley and poole
    We have a couple of other witnesses here to speak about 
privatization. Last year the Blue Ribbon Panel recommended that Amtrak 
be ``privatized'' and reborn in a fashion analogous to the British Rail 
model, that was ``privatized'' a few years ago.
    But we, luckily, have the luxury of having witnessed the British 
experiment.
    We know now that the experiment has resulted in fewer trains, poor 
reliability, and customer satisfaction at an all time low, while public 
subsidies have doubled.
    A study published in Britain last year estimated that the entire 
cost of privatizing British Rail will be 5.6 billion British pounds 
($9.4 billion dollars). I don't think we need to re-make their 
mistakes.
                  chicago metra (jeff ladd) 2nd panel
    I thought it interesting to contrast the privatization proposals 
with what Mr. Ladd said in his testimony. Mr. Ladd knows firsthand what 
its like to run a railroad. Chicago's METRA is clearly recognized as 
one of the best-run commuter operations in the nation.
    He said he admired Amtrak's management and he agreed with Amtrak's 
business approach, and went on, ``I congratulate Amtrak's managers on 
their dedication to better business practices that have produced both 
gains in ridership and passenger revenues and put Amtrak on the 
threshold of its first $1 billion year.''
    I think it should be kept in mind that these comments are coming 
from the only one of our witnesses who has any experience running a 
railroad.
    Mr. Ladd mentioned in his testimony that Metra faces far fewer 
restriction than Amtrak--yet he also points out that Amtrak covers a 
much higher percentage of its operating costs. Simply, he tells us that 
Amtrak is doing more with less.
    Again, the only gentleman here who has operated a railroad is not 
criticizing Amtrak--he's praising it.
    Finally, Mr. Ladd's testimony echoes a refrain we have heard from 
Amtrak for years: The more you capitalize the less you subsidize. He 
points out that the great majority of METRA's capital program is 
prioritized based on the ability of the investment to reduce operating 
costs. With the release of the TRA funds, Amtrak will now, for the 
first time, also be able to do that.

                        Problems Without Amtrak

    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. I just wanted to mention while the 
Senator from Montana, our friend, is here that the Empire 
Builder, which is Chicago to Seattle, has experienced a 65-
percent increase in passenger ridership in just 1 year.
    Senator Baucus. I forgot to mention that. Thank you. It is 
true.
    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, you have heard from 
friends of Amtrak this morning, but the one thing that I think 
has to be clearly understood: Amtrak is a national resource. 
Discounting the fact that most of its ridership comes from the 
Northeast, the fact of the matter is that there is an enormous 
volume of business that passes through the Northeast that 
affects every State in the country. And if Amtrak is out of 
business, I can tell you, Senator Reid, that whether it is Las 
Vegas or Butte, MT, they are going to feel the delays that are 
caused in air travel.
    Our air travel system, I just want to point out, something 
that came out of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission. 
They said that unless there are major investments in the 
aviation infrastructure in this world of ours, that by the year 
2010 we can expect a major air crash every 7 to 10 days. That 
calls out screaming for relief someplace, and one way to give 
it relief, I think, is to give Amtrak the funds that it needs 
to get a train that can go at 180 miles an hour, get you up to 
New York in an hour and a half, get you down to Alabama, stop 
in Tuscaloosa. What other cities did you want?
    Senator Shelby. Well, that would be the main one. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Lautenberg. Tuscaloosa.
    Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, if I might just very briefly. 
The highway bill we passed helps catapult the United States 
into the next century, the next millennium. It seems that we 
have an obligation to do the same with rail transportation, 
rail passenger transportation as well as freight.
    I know we do not have all the funding here and the 
wherewithal to get all that done, but it is incumbent upon us 
as the elected representatives of our people, it is our 
responsibility, to find some way to begin to make that happen. 
We have no choice, and I just urge us to be thinking in those 
terms as well as the individual national and parochial terms.
    I thank the chairman very much for his indulgence.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
    Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
    Senator Reid. If I could just say before the ranking member 
of the full Committee of Environment and Public Works leaves, I 
appreciate your taking a leadership position on this issue. We 
tend in our committee, Environment and Public Works, to think 
of it only as highways. I think your leadership here today 
speaks volumes for what our committee really does.
                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS F. SCHEINBERG, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 
            TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, RESOURCES, COMMUNITY 
            AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                      Office of Inspector General

STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL

                       Introduction of witnesses

    Senator Shelby. Our first panel will be Phyllis Scheinberg, 
Associate Director of the General Accounting Office and Ken 
Mead, Department of Transportation Inspector General. We 
welcome both of you to the committee. Your written statement 
will be made part of the record in its entirety and, Ms. 
Scheinberg, you can begin as you wish.

                    Statement of Phyllis Scheinberg

    Ms. Scheinberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on 
Amtrak's financial condition.
    Less than a year ago I appeared before this subcommittee 
and stated that Amtrak was in a very precarious financial 
position. Amtrak itself raised the specter of bankruptcy at 
that time. I am here today to report that Amtrak continues to 
be in a very precarious position and will remain so for the 
immediate future. We base this assessment on three things: 
First, Amtrak's financial performance over the past year; 
second, the challenges that Amtrak faces in improving its 
financial health; and third, the potential impact of recently 
enacted legislation on Amtrak's financial condition.
    First, Amtrak's financial condition has continued to 
deteriorate despite its efforts over the past 4 years to reduce 
losses. While Amtrak reduced its net losses from fiscal year 
1994 to 1997, it has not been able to close the gap between 
total revenues and expenses. For example, while intercity 
passenger service revenues grew by about 4 percent last year, 
related expenses grew by about 7 percent, and Amtrak predicts 
that its net loss for the current fiscal year will be 
substantially larger than in the last 2 years.
    Amtrak's poor financial condition has also affected its 
cash flow and the need to borrow money to make ends meet. In 
fiscal year 1997, Amtrak had to borrow $75 million to meet its 
operating expenses. The prospects in this fiscal year are 
worse. Amtrak originally planned a cash flow deficit of $100 
million in fiscal year 1998. However, in January Amtrak 
increased this estimate to $200 million and Amtrak began 
borrowing last month to pay its bills.
    The second reason that Amtrak continues to be in a 
precarious financial position is due to the challenges it 
faces. For example, the railroad will incur between $3 and $5 
million in increased costs this fiscal year as a result of its 
recent agreement with one of its labor unions. According to 
Amtrak, extending this type of settlement to all of its labor 
unions could cost between $60 and $70 million more per year 
than planned.
    Amtrak plans to reduce its losses by growing its way to 
financial health, that is increasing revenues rather than 
cutting back on service. However, this may prove difficult, as 
Amtrak has had to substantially scale back its revenue 
projections for express business and will not see positive net 
income from the high-speed rail program for another 2 years.
    Amtrak does not currently plan any route reductions even 
though its data show that only 1 of its 40 routes, the 
Metroliner from Washington, DC, to New York City, covers all of 
its operating costs. For the remaining 39 routes, Amtrak loses 
an average of $53 per passenger. On 14 of these routes, Amtrak 
loses over $100 per passenger.
    Senator Shelby. Do you have a list of those routes?
    Ms. Scheinberg. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Would you furnish that for the record?
    Ms. Scheinberg. Definitely.
    [The information follows:]

  TABLE 1.--FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AMTRAK'S ROUTES, FISCAL YEAR 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Profit or
                  Name/route                     Operating    (loss) per
                                                 ratio \1\    passenger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metroliners: New York, NY-Washington, DC......         0.94           $5
San Joaquins: Oakland, CA-Bakersfield, CA.....         1.23         (10)
Carolinian: New York, NY-Charlotte, NC........         1.45         (27)
Piedmont: Raleigh, NC-Charlotte, NC...........         1.48         (42)
Capitols: Roseville, CA-San Jose, CA..........         1.52         (15)
Auto Train: Lorton, VA-Sanford, FL............         1.58        (118)
Northeast Direct: Washington, D.C.-Boston, MA          1.65         (29)
 or Springfield, MA...........................
Pacific Northwest Corridor: Eugene, OR-                1.76         (27)
 Seattle, WA or Vancouver, Canada.............
Illini: Chicago, IL-Carbondale, IL............         1.82         (46)
San Diegans: San Diego, CA-Los Angeles, CA or          1.86         (23)
 Santa Barbara, CA............................
Kansas City-St. Louis: Kansas City, Mo-St.             1.91         (45)
 Louis, MO....................................
Southwest Chief: Chicago, IL-Los Angeles, CA..         1.92        (180)
Vermonter: Washington, D.C.-St. Albans, VT....         2.00         (58)
Lake Shore Limited: Chicago, IL-Boston, MA or          2.01         (90)
 New York, NY.................................
Empire: New York, NY-Albany or Buffalo, NY....         2.03         (38)
Adirondack: New York, NY-Montreal, Canada.....         2.10         (57)
Three Rivers: New York, NY-Chicago............         2.18        (139)
Silver Meteor: New York, NY-Miami, FL.........         2.18        (120)
Empire Builder: Chicago, IL-Seattle, WA or             2.20        (135)
 Portland, OR.................................
Illinois Zephyr: Chicago, IL-Quincy, IL.......         2.21         (61)
International: Chicago, IL-Toronto, Canada....         2.23         (47)
New York-Harrisburg: New York, NY-Harrisburg,          2.23         (28)
 PA...........................................
California Zephyr: Chicago, IL-San Francisco,          2.24        (149)
 CA...........................................
Capitol Limited: Chicago, IL-Washington, D.C..         2.27        (133)
Pere Marquette: Chicago, IL-Grand Rapids, MI..         2.43         (51)
Coast Starlight: Los Angeles, CA-Seattle, WA..         2.43         (93)
Philadelphia-Harrisburg: Philadelphia, PA-             2.46         (30)
 Harrisburg, PA...............................
Silver Star: New York, NY-Miami, FL...........         2.47        (143)
Silver Palm: \2\ New York, NY-Miami, FL.......         2.48        (163)
Crescent: New York, NY-New Orleans, LA........         2.56        (163)
Chicago-St. Louis: Chicago, IL-St. Louis, MO..         2.58         (59)
Clockers: New York, NY-Philadelphia, PA.......         2.59         (12)
Pennsylvanian: New York, NY-Pittsburgh, PA....         2.70         (53)
Empire-Ethan Allen Express: \3\ New York, NY-          2.75         (79)
 Rutland, VT..................................
City of New Orleans: Chicago, IL-New Orleans,          2.78        (130)
 LA...........................................
Hiawathas: Chicago, IL-Milwaukee, WI..........         2.92         (50)
Texas Eagle: Chicago, IL-San Antonio, TX......         3.11        (189)
Sunset Limited: Los Angeles, CA-Orlando, FL...         3.16        (285)
Cardinal: Chicago, IL-Washington, D.C.........         3.29        (135)
Chicago-Pontiac: Chicago, IL-Pontiac, MI......         3.66         (66)
                                               -------------------------
      Total route system......................         1.86         (47)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Excludes three routes that Amtrak closed during fiscal year 1997.
\1\ A route's operating ratio is its expenses divided by its revenues.
  An operating ratio less than 1.0 means that the route was profitable,
  while an operating ratio greater than 1.0 means that the route lost
  money. A ratio greater than 2.0 means that the route lost at least two
  times more money than it earned during the fiscal year.
\2\ Service was introduced in November 1996.
\3\ Service was introduced in December 1996.

    Ms. Scheinberg. In spite of these losses, Amtrak has 
encountered opposition whenever it has proposed to discontinue 
routes. Also, simply pruning the worst performing routes could 
affect ridership on connecting routes that are perhaps 
performing better. Amtrak has recently decided to undertake a 
market analysis of its route network to gain a better 
understanding of the issues involved in operating a national 
system.
    Finally, Federal funding and legislative reforms will not 
solve Amtrak's short-term financial problems. Funding from the 
Taxpayer Relief Act, fiscal year 1998 capital appropriations, 
the President's proposed 1999 budget, and other sources would 
provide Amtrak with about $5 billion in capital support over 
the next 5 years. However, this support will fall short of 
Amtrak's identified capital needs by about $500 million.
    In addition, in order to avoid a cash flow crisis Amtrak 
plans to use about two-thirds of its requested Federal grant 
funds over the next 5 years to pay for maintenance expenses. 
This use of capital funds for preventive maintenance would 
substantially reduce the remaining level of funds available to 
acquire new equipment or make the capital improvements 
necessary to reduce Amtrak's costs and increase revenues.
    Also, while the Amtrak Reform Act has the potential to have 
a significant impact in the long term to help Amtrak better 
control and manage its costs, these reforms may have little, if 
any, immediate effect on Amtrak's financial performance.
    Mr. Chairman, in 1995 we concluded that the Congress needed 
to decide on the Nation's expectations for intercity passenger 
rail service, including defining a national route network and 
determining the extent to which the Federal Government would 
contribute funds. Additionally, in 1997 we concluded that as 
presently constituted Amtrak will need substantial Federal 
operating and capital support well into the future. Based on 
our recent analysis, we believe these conclusions are still 
true.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy 
to respond to any questions.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you very much. We have your complete 
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Phyllis F. Scheinberg
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the 
opportunity to testify today on Amtrak's financial condition. Less than 
a year ago, we appeared before this Subcommittee to discuss Amtrak's 
financial problems.\1\ At that time, we said that Amtrak was in a very 
precarious financial position. Amtrak itself raised the specter of a 
corporate bankruptcy in 1997.\2\ We are here today to report that 
Amtrak continues to be in a very precarious position and will remain so 
for the immediate future. We base this assessment on Amtrak's financial 
performance last year and during the first quarter of this fiscal year; 
challenges that Amtrak will face in improving its financial health; and 
the potential impact that recently enacted legislation may have on 
Amtrak's financial condition. In summary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Transportation Financing: Challenges in Meeting Long-Term 
Funding Needs for FAA, Amtrak, and the Nation's Highways (GAO/T-RCED-
97-151, May 7, 1997). See also, DOT's Budget: Management and 
Performance Issues Facing the Department in fiscal year 1999 (GAO/T-
RCED/AIMD-98-76, Feb. 12, 1998); and Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak's 
Financial Crisis Threatens Continued Viability (GAO/T-RCED-97-147, Apr. 
23, 1997).
    \2\ See our report entitled Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues 
Associated With a Possible Amtrak Liquidation (GAO/RCED-98-60, Mar. 2, 
1998) for a discussion of the expected financial and other effects if 
Amtrak were to undergo liquidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  --Amtrak's financial condition continues to deteriorate. Although 
        Amtrak has been able to reduce its net losses (total expenses 
        less total revenues) from about $892 million in fiscal year 
        1994 (in 1997 dollars) to about $762 million in fiscal year 
        1997, the 1997 loss would have been $63 million higher were it 
        not for one-time increases in revenue from the sales of real 
        estate and access rights for telecommunications. Prospects for 
        fiscal year 1998 are not bright. In March 1998, Amtrak 
        projected that its net loss for fiscal year 1998 could be about 
        $845 million--about $56 million more than planned.
  --Amtrak will continue to face challenges in improving its financial 
        health. Amtrak hopes to improve its financial health by 
        increasing revenues through such actions as expanding mail and 
        express service (delivery of higher-value, time-sensitive 
        goods) and instituting high-speed rail service between New York 
        City and Boston. However, Amtrak has had to substantially scale 
        back its net revenue projections for express business, and 
        positive net income from the high-speed rail program will not 
        occur for another 2 years. Amtrak does not currently plan to 
        reduce routes, even though only one of its routes--the 
        Metroliner service between Washington, D.C., and New York 
        City--makes money. Instead it plans to fine-tune its route 
        network and conduct a comprehensive market analysis.
  --Federal funding and recently enacted reforms will not solve 
        Amtrak's financial problems. Although the Taxpayer Relief Act 
        of 1997, fiscal year 1998 capital appropriations, and the 
        President's proposed fiscal year 1999 budget, if enacted, will 
        provide Amtrak with historic levels of capital support, this 
        support will fall short of Amtrak's identified capital needs by 
        about $500 million. In addition, Amtrak plans to use $1.8 
        billion of the $2.8 billion in requested federal capital grant 
        funds to pay maintenance expenses between fiscal years 1999 and 
        2003. The use of funds for this purpose would substantially 
        reduce the remaining level of funds available to acquire new 
        equipment or make the capital improvements necessary to reduce 
        Amtrak's costs and/or increase revenues. Therefore, such use 
        will have a negative impact over the long term. Furthermore, 
        the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 significantly 
        changed Amtrak's operations; but these reforms will provide 
        few, if any, immediate financial benefits.
                               background
    Amtrak was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 to 
operate and revitalize intercity passenger rail service. Prior to 
Amtrak's creation, such service was provided by private railroads, 
which had lost money, especially after World War II. The act, as 
amended, gave Amtrak a number of goals, including providing modern, 
efficient intercity passenger rail service; giving Americans an 
alternative to automobiles and airplanes to meet their transportation 
needs; and minimizing federal operating subsidies. Through fiscal year 
1998, the federal government has provided Amtrak with over $20 billion 
in operating and capital subsidies, excluding $2.2 billion from the 
Taxpayer Relief Act.
    In December 1994, at the request of the administration, Amtrak 
established a goal of eliminating federal operating subsidies for 
Amtrak by 2002. To meet this goal and respond to continually growing 
losses and a widening gap between operating deficits and federal 
operating subsidies, Amtrak developed strategic business plans. These 
plans have attempted to increase revenues and control costs through 
such actions as expanding mail and express service and adjusting routes 
and service frequency. Amtrak also has restructured its organization 
into strategic business units.
    The Congress provided additional financial assistance to Amtrak in 
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, enacted in August 1997. This act makes 
a total of about $2.2 billion available to Amtrak in 1998 and 1999 to 
acquire capital improvements, pay certain equipment maintenance 
expenses, and pay principal and interest on certain debt, among other 
things. In addition, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, 
enacted in December 1997, makes certain reforms to Amtrak's operations. 
These reforms include, among other things, (1) eliminating current 
labor protection arrangements on May 31, 1998; (2) repealing the ban on 
contracting out nonfood and beverage work; and (3) placing a $200 
million cap on the amount of liability claims that can be paid as the 
result of an Amtrak accident.
         amtrak's financial condition continues to deteriorate
    Amtrak's financial condition has continued to deteriorate despite 
its efforts over the past 4 years to reduce losses. While Amtrak has 
reduced its net losses from about $892 million in fiscal year 1994 (in 
1997 dollars) \3\ to $762 million in fiscal year 1997, it has not been 
able to close the gap between total revenues and expenses. (See fig. 
1.) For example, while intercity passenger-related revenues grew by 
about 4 percent last year, intercity passenger-related expenses grew by 
about 7 percent. Notably, the net loss for fiscal year 1997 would have 
been much greater if Amtrak had not earned about $63 million, primarily 
from the one-time sales of real estate and telecommunications rights-
of-way in the Northeast Corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Unless otherwise noted, information on financial condition and 
performance was provided by Amtrak and was not independently verified. 
The net loss for fiscal year 1994 excludes a one-time charge of $261 
million (in 1997 dollars) for accounting changes, restructuring costs, 
and other items.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA24.003

    Amtrak's net loss for fiscal year 1998 will likely be substantially 
worse than in 1996 and 1997. In March 1998, Amtrak projected that the 
net loss for this year will be about $845 million, or $56 million more 
than budgeted. Amtrak's financial deterioration can be seen in other 
measures as well. For example, Amtrak's working capital--the difference 
between current assets and current liabilities--generally declined 
between fiscal years 1995 and 1997, from a deficit of $149 million to a 
deficit of $300 million. As figure 2 shows, at the end of fiscal year 
1997, Amtrak's working capital was the lowest it had been over the last 
9 years. Declining working capital jeopardizes a company's ability to 
pay its bills as they come due. The decline in working capital reflects 
an increase in accounts payable, short-term debt, and capital lease 
obligations, among other items.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA24.004

    Amtrak's poor financial condition has also affected its cash flow 
and its need to borrow money to make ends meet. In fiscal year 1997, 
Amtrak had to borrow $75 million to meet its operating expenses. The 
prospects in fiscal year 1998 are worse. Amtrak originally planned a 
cash-flow deficit of $100 million in fiscal year 1998; however, in 
January 1998, Amtrak increased this estimate to $200 million.\4\ This 
projected increase is primarily due to (1) reductions in expected 
revenues from Amtrak's pilot express program ($47 million); (2) a 
liability for the wage increases provided by Amtrak's recent agreement 
with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees ($35 million);\5\ 
and, (3) an increase in accounts payable that resulted from deferring 
fiscal year 1997 payables to fiscal year 1998 ($16 million). Amtrak 
began borrowing in February 1998 to make ends meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ As of mid-March 1998, Amtrak had $150 million of its $170 
million in short-term lines of credit available to help meet cash-flow 
deficits.
    \5\ This $35 million reflects Amtrak's estimate of the cost in 
fiscal year 1998 of extending the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 
Employees labor settlement to Amtrak's 12 other labor unions. Amtrak is 
in the process of negotiating with the other unions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        improving amtrak's financial health presents challenges
    Amtrak will continue to face challenges to its financial health. 
Despite efforts to improve revenues and cut costs, the railroad 
continues to lose more money than it planned. This situation may get 
worse. Amtrak's recent agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of 
Way Employees is expected to increase Amtrak's fiscal year 1998 labor 
costs by between $3 million to $5 million. According to Amtrak, 
extending this type of settlement to all of its labor unions could cost 
between $60 million and $70 million more each year than is currently 
planned, from fiscal years 1999 through 2002.\6\ Amtrak's plans to 
reduce its financial losses by ``growing'' its way to financial 
health--that is, increasing revenues, rather than cutting train 
routes--may also encounter difficulty. These plans depend, at least in 
part, on expanding mail and express services. However, Amtrak's efforts 
to increase its express business have been frustrated and it has had to 
reduce anticipated revenues in its express pilot program by $47 
million.\7\ As a result, in January 1998 Amtrak increased its projected 
overall loss \8\ for fiscal year 1998 from $52 million to $99 million. 
Another Amtrak initiative--establishing high-speed rail service between 
New York City and Boston--also will not provide immediate financial 
benefits. In establishing high-speed rail transportation between these 
two cities, Amtrak expects to decrease travel time from 4\1/2\ hours to 
3 hours and significantly increase revenue and ridership. Amtrak's 
goals are for the high-speed rail program to begin providing positive 
net income in fiscal year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ This is net of any one-time payments or productivity increases 
or efficiency gains negotiated with the unions.
    \7\ In addition, the Surface Transportation Board has been asked to 
rule on whether a freight railroad must make its tracks and facilities 
available to Amtrak for express service. An adverse ruling could 
further reduce revenue opportunities. Amtrak has reduced its 
anticipated net revenues from express service from about $75 million 
annually to about $27 million annually after fiscal year 1998.
    \8\ Overall loss is the same as net loss, except the federal 
operating support received and noncash items (such as depreciation) are 
excluded. Amtrak refers to overall loss as its ``budget result.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak will also continue to find it difficult to take actions to 
reduce costs, such as making route and service adjustments. During 
fiscal year 1995, Amtrak was successful in reducing and eliminating 
some routes and saving an estimated $54 million. In fiscal year 1997, 
Amtrak was less successful in taking such actions. Amtrak does not 
currently plan to reduce any more routes. Instead, it plans to fine-
tune its route network. For example, in February 1998, Amtrak added a 
fourth train per week between Chicago and San Antonio on the Texas 
Eagle route, in part to accommodate expanded mail and express business. 
Amtrak is also planning to begin daily passenger rail service between 
Los Angeles and Las Vegas by January 1999.
    In explaining the rationale for attempting to increase revenues 
through fine-tuning Amtrak's routes rather than through cutting back on 
service, Amtrak and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) officials 
pointed to Amtrak's mission of maintaining a national route system. 
They noted that such a system will consist of routes with a range of 
profitability, including poorer-performing routes that provide needed 
linkages to better-performing routes. Furthermore, poorer-performing 
routes may provide public benefits, such as serving small cities and 
rural areas. These officials stressed that cutting the routes with the 
worst performance could damage the national network and cause the loss 
of revenue on connecting routes. Amtrak has just begun a market 
analysis that could result in several alternatives for a national 
intercity passenger rail network.
    The decision to make route adjustments is a difficult one, even 
though Amtrak's data show that only one of the railroad's 40 routes 
(Metroliners between Washington, D.C., and New York City) covers all 
its operating costs.\9\ For the remaining 39 routes, Amtrak loses an 
average of $53 for each passenger. Amtrak data show that it loses over 
$100 per passenger on 14 of these routes, and only 5 routes covered 
their train costs in fiscal year 1997. However, Amtrak encounters 
opposition when it proposes to discontinue routes because of the desire 
by a range of interests to see passenger train service continued in 
potentially affected communities. In addition, Amtrak maintains that 
every route that covers its variable costs (costs of running trains) 
makes a contribution toward its substantial fixed costs. Finally, 
simply pruning Amtrak's worst-performing routes could exacerbate 
Amtrak's financial condition because eliminating one route is likely to 
affect ridership on connecting routes that are perhaps performing 
better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ The costs include the costs of running trains (e.g., fuel and 
train crew); route costs (e.g., costs to maintain stations); and 
allocated system costs (overhead).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
federal funding and reform legislation may not meet amtrak's financial 
                                 needs
    As a result of the Taxpayer Relief Act and funds requested through 
the appropriations process, record amounts of federal funds could be 
available to fund Amtrak's capital improvement needs. However, Amtrak 
projects that it will still be short of the funds it believes are 
necessary to meet these needs. In addition, Amtrak plans to use a 
substantial portion of these funds to meet maintenance needs--needs 
that have traditionally been considered operating expenses. Finally, 
recently enacted reform legislation will likely have little financial 
impact in the short term.
Available Funds May Fall Short of Amtrak's Capital Investment Needs and 
        May Be Used to Pay Maintenance Expenses
    Capital investments will continue to play a critical role in 
supporting Amtrak's business plans and ultimately in maintaining 
Amtrak's viability. Such investment will not only help Amtrak retain 
revenues by improving the quality of service but will also be important 
in facilitating the revenue growth predicted in the business plans. 
Although Amtrak stands to receive historic levels of federal capital 
funds in the next few years, it is not likely that sufficient funds 
will be available to meet Amtrak's identified capital investment needs. 
Amtrak's September 1997 strategic business plan identified about $5.5 
billion in capital investment needs from fiscal years 1998 through 
2003.\10\ This amount includes such items as completing the high-speed 
rail program between New York and Boston (about $1.7 billion), making 
infrastructure-related investments (about $900 million), and 
overhauling existing equipment (about $500 million). However, federal 
funding from the Taxpayer Relief Act, the fiscal year 1998 capital 
appropriations,\11\ and the President's proposed fiscal year 1999 
budget--along with about $800 million that Amtrak anticipates receiving 
from state, local, and private financing--would provide about $5.0 
billion, or about $500 million short of the $5.5 billion that it states 
that it needs for capital funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ As of mid-March 1998, the capital portion of this business 
plan had not been approved by Amtrak's board of directors.
    \11\ The fiscal year 1998 capital appropriation excludes $199 
million, which was not to be made available for obligation if Amtrak's 
reform legislation was enacted before such capital appropriation was 
distributed. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act was enacted in 
December 1997. The $199 million would have been distributed in July 
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak plans to use a substantial amount of these federal funds for 
maintenance expenses, such as preventative maintenance, rather than for 
high-yield capital investments. The use of these available federal 
funds for maintenance expenses could have long-term financial impacts 
on Amtrak. In particular, such use would reduce the amount of money 
available to Amtrak to acquire new equipment and/or acquire those 
capital improvements necessary to reduce costs and/or increase 
revenues.
    In this regard, the President's proposed fiscal year 1999 budget 
would allow Amtrak to use capital grant funds for maintenance purposes, 
such as overhauling rail rolling stock and providing preventative 
maintenance. The administration believes such flexibility would allow 
Amtrak to manage its capital grant appropriation more efficiently and 
make clearer trade-offs between maintenance and capital investment 
costs. Amtrak's March 1998 revised strategic business plan indicates 
that it plans to use $511 million (82 percent) of the $621 million in 
capital grant funds proposed in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget 
for maintenance expenses. In total, Amtrak plans to use $1.8 billion 
(65 percent) of $2.8 billion in capital grants under the President's 
budget proposal to pay maintenance expenses from fiscal years 1999 
through 2003.
    In addition, Amtrak plans to temporarily use some of the Taxpayer 
Relief Act funds for the allowed maintenance of the existing equipment 
used in intercity passenger rail service. To help stay within its 
credit limits,\12\ Amtrak plans to temporarily use $100 million in 
Taxpayer Relief Act funds for a portion of allowed maintenance expenses 
in fiscal year 1998, according to Amtrak's March 1998 revised strategic 
business plan. Amtrak's use of a portion of its federal capital grant 
for maintenance expenses, as is currently allowed for transit, is 
expected to enable it to repay this $100 million. Amtrak also plans to 
temporarily use $317 million and $200 million in Taxpayer Relief Act 
funds in 1999 and 2000, respectively, for a portion of allowed 
maintenance expenses. In this way, Amtrak expects to reduce its cash 
flow deficits to $100 million in each of those years. Amtrak officials 
told us that the Taxpayer Relief Act funds, including these repayments, 
will ultimately be used for investments that have a high rate-of-return 
and that are highly leveraged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ As discussed earlier, Amtrak is currently projecting a cash-
flow deficit of about $200 million by the end of fiscal year 1998, or 
about $100 million more than planned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Amtrak, temporarily using a portion of Taxpayer Relief 
Act funds for allowed equipment maintenance will help the corporation 
avoid additional borrowing from its credit lines over the original 
planned amount. Amtrak believes using Taxpayer Relief Act funds for 
this purpose will help keep it below its maximum short-term credit 
limit. Amtrak officials told us that using a portion of the federally 
appropriated capital grant funds for maintenance will provide stability 
for Amtrak over the next several years, thus averting a possible 
bankruptcy. This stability will provide Amtrak with some breathing room 
to (1) determine how to address the capital shortfall and (2) complete 
a market analysis that would result in several alternatives for a 
national intercity passenger rail network.
Short-term Financial Effects of Amtrak Reform Legislation May Be 
        Limited
    The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act was also designed to 
address Amtrak's poor financial condition by making certain reforms to 
Amtrak's operations to help Amtrak better control and manage its costs. 
For example, the act:
  --eliminates, as of May 31, 1998, existing labor protection 
        arrangements for employees who lose their jobs as the result of 
        a discontinuation of service (currently eligible employees may 
        be entitled to up to 6 years of compensation) and requires 
        Amtrak and its unions to negotiate new arrangements;
  --repeals the statutory ban on contracting out work (except food and 
        beverage service, which can already be contracted out) and 
        makes contracting out subject to negotiations by November 1999; 
        and
  --places a $200 million cap on the amount of liability claims 
        (including punitive damages) that can be paid as the result of 
        an Amtrak accident.
    The reforms contained in this act may have little, if any, 
immediate effect on Amtrak's financial performance for several reasons. 
First, Amtrak officials pointed out that no route closures are 
currently planned. Therefore, no new labor protection costs are 
expected to be incurred. Amtrak officials also noted that the existing 
labor protection arrangements for employees affected by route closures 
have primarily resulted in payments of wage differentials because many 
eligible employees were transferred to lower-paying jobs. According to 
Amtrak, in the past 5 years, only 5 employees have received severance 
pay and 11 employees are currently in arbitration over this issue. 
Second, the ban on contracting out work need not be negotiated until 
November 1, 1999.\13\ Amtrak officials believe that while the repeal of 
the ban may provide long-term flexibility, including flexibility in 
union negotiations and in controlling costs, the repeal is not likely 
to have much effect before November 1999. Finally, Amtrak believes the 
$200 million limit on liability claims may have limited financial 
effect because this cap is significantly higher than amounts Amtrak has 
historically paid on liability claims. Amtrak and FRA officials believe 
the benefits of these reforms are unclear at this time. These reforms 
may not result in measurable financial savings as much as in additional 
flexibility in negotiating with labor unions and in addressing the 
freight railroads' concerns over such issues as liability payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Amtrak and one or more of its trade unions may mutually agree 
to collectively bargain this issue sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The act also made other changes that have the potential for a 
significant impact on Amtrak's future. First, the act replaced the 
current board of directors with a ``Reform Board.''\14\ Second, it 
established an independent commission--the Amtrak Reform Council--to 
evaluate Amtrak's financial performance and make recommendations for 
cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. If 
at any time after December 1999 the Council finds that Amtrak is not 
meeting its financial goals or that Amtrak will require operating funds 
after December 2002, then the Council is to submit to the Congress, 
within 90 days, an action plan for a restructured national intercity 
passenger rail system. In addition, under such circumstances, Amtrak is 
required to develop and submit an action plan for the complete 
liquidation of the railroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ The Reform Board is to assume its responsibilities by March 
31, 1998, or as soon as four members have been appointed and qualified. 
As of mid-March 1998, the Reform Board had not been established. 
Unrelated to the act, Amtrak's president and chief executive officer 
resigned in December 1997. A successor had not been named as of mid-
March 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Chairman, in 1995, we concluded that the Congress needed to 
decide on the nation's expectations for intercity passenger rail 
service and the scope of Amtrak's mission in providing that service. 
These decisions require defining a national route network, determining 
the extent to which the federal government would contribute funds, and 
deciding on the way any remaining deficits would be covered. In 1997, 
we concluded that, as currently constituted, Amtrak will need 
substantial federal operating and capital support well into the future. 
Whether Amtrak will be able to improve its financial position in the 
near term is doubtful. If not, the Congress will be asked to continue 
to provide substantial sums of money each year to support Amtrak. If 
the Congress is not willing to provide such levels of funds, then 
Amtrak's future could be radically different, or Amtrak may not exist 
at all. We believe that this is the right time for Amtrak's new Reform 
Board to work with the Congress to consider and act on the issues that 
will chart Amtrak's future.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.\15\ I would be happy to 
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may 
have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ The information contained in this testimony is based on our 
review of Amtrak's financial reports and plans; recently-enacted 
legislation; and discussions with Amtrak and FRA officials. We met with 
Amtrak officials, including Amtrak's Vice President for Government and 
Public Affairs, to obtain comments on a draft of our statement. Amtrak 
said that our presentation of the issues was fair; and they asked that 
we provide additional information on Amtrak's planned use of capital 
grant funds and Taxpayer Relief Act funds. We have included this 
information in our statement. We performed our work in March 1998 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Ken Mead, Department of Transportation 
Inspector General. Mr. Mead.
    Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg: Our testimony 
will focus first on the independent assessment of Amtrak as 
required by law and its oversight by the inspector general; 
second, on what Amtrak self-sufficiency means; and third, on 
the status of high-speed rail-related improvement in the 
Northeast corridor.
    First, assessing Amtrak's financial status. In the Amtrak 
reform legislation, Congress required an independent assessment 
of Amtrak's financial requirements through 2002. The inspector 
general is directed to oversee that assessment, which is 
scheduled to begin in April and be completed before the end of 
this fiscal year.
    Amtrak's business plan, which you may know was most 
recently updated on March 10, contains core assumptions that 
comprise what Amtrak terms its glidepath to self-sufficiency. 
An essential part of the independent assessment as required by 
law will involve close scrutiny of those assumptions. Some 
highlights:
    First, Amtrak is projecting that revenues will increase 
from $1.7 billion in 1997 to $2.3 billion by the end of 2002. 
Most of that will come from the introduction of high-speed rail 
service. Total passenger revenue is projected to be up by over 
18 percent in 2000 compared to 7 percent this year. Validating 
that forecast and the assumptions behind it are key elements of 
the independent assessment.
    Second, Amtrak plans to limit cost growth. Amtrak projects 
an average annual increase in operating costs of 3.75 percent 
through 2002, slightly more than the annual average increase of 
3.6 percent over the last 5 years. Limiting growth will be 
difficult because Amtrak is about to incur significant costs as 
it introduces high-speed rail service.
    Third, the administration is requesting $2.2 billion for 
capital assistance between 1999 and 2002, plus another $2.2 
billion in capital as a result of the Taxpayer Relief Act, for 
a total of about $4.4 billion. That will not be sufficient to 
meet Amtrak's capital requirements. Establishing the railroad's 
capital requirements independently and the timing of those 
capital requirements is a key element of the assessment.
    Finally, the current plan is predicated on Amtrak's ability 
to use capital funding for the maintenance of equipment, 
infrastructure, and facilities. That was alluded to by Ms. 
Scheinberg. Those types of expenditures, Mr. Chairman, 
historically have been considered operating expenses by Amtrak 
and have not been paid for with capital assistance.
    Senator Shelby. Say that again. Say that again.
    Mr. Mead. Historically, Amtrak's maintenance costs, such as 
repairing tracks and switches and reconditioning railcar 
components, have generally been considered to be operating 
expenses and have not been paid for with capital assistance. 
Things such as building track, purchasing locomotives, and 
constructing facilities are considered capital expenses and 
traditionally those have been funded with capital grants.
    We are discussing with the Surface Transportation Board the 
definition of capital and operating expenses as they apply to 
freight railroads, and we will report the results of that 
discussion to this committee as soon as we have them.
    Amtrak is assuming, though, that it will be able to apply a 
flexible definition of capital and use capital grants for 
maintenance. That proposed change clouds the issue of Amtrak's 
self-sufficiency from Federal operating support.
    I would like to mention a few points about this self-
sufficiency concept and the importance of coming to grips with 
exactly what it means. The legislation, as you know, 
contemplates that Amtrak will achieve operating self-
sufficiency by 2002. Clarity is needed on what this means. From 
Amtrak's perspective, self-sufficiency has meant no operating 
subsidy, but it has never meant operating without Federal 
capital subsidies. If Amtrak is correct, the definition of what 
is operating and what is capital becomes crucial. That is 
because this year the administration did not request an 
operating subsidy. Instead, the request is for $621 million in 
a capital subsidy, part of which will be used for maintenance 
expenses, costs that were formerly considered operating 
expenses.
    Frankly, we doubt that this change in nomenclature will 
mean that Amtrak has achieved operating self-sufficiency in 
1999. However, for planning purposes and to avoid controversy, 
we think it is important that all parties have a common 
understanding of what the self-sufficiency goal means.
    And now just a couple words on the Northeast corridor. In 
2001 Amtrak projects a net contribution to revenue of at least 
$150 million from the Northeast Corridor, and that will be 
after the introduction of high-speed rail service. That 
compares with a net cash loss of $94 million for the Northeast 
corridor core operations in 1997.
    High-speed rail is scheduled to start in October 1999. That 
schedule is tight. Electrification schedules north of New 
Haven, CT, have slipped several times, but Amtrak believes that 
the project can be met by the October date. That means final 
testing and startup will be occurring in the same month. That 
month is really crucial, Mr. Chairman, because November and 
December are the high yield months for Amtrak in that corridor.
    I also want to point out that, in addition to 
electrification, there are still some other needs that need to 
be addressed. Last fall a Metro North train pulled down a long 
section of overhead catenary wire. The wire is 90 years old and 
the accident stranded about 40,000 travelers for 4 hours. In 
1997 catenary-related delays occurred in the corridor over 39 
times and there is no short-term plan to replace that catenary.
    That concludes my statement, sir.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Mead. We have your complete 
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the 
opportunity to testify on Amtrak's financial future. Our testimony 
today will focus on (1) the independent assessment of Amtrak and its 
oversight by the Office of Inspector General, (2) the meaning of 
financial self-sufficiency as it relates to Amtrak, and (3) our work on 
the Northeast Corridor.
                  assessing amtrak's financial status
    In the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Congress 
directed the Secretary of Transportation to contract for an independent 
assessment of Amtrak's financial requirements through fiscal year 2002. 
The assessment will examine Amtrak's operations, accounting and bidding 
practices, and Strategic Business Plan. It will also determine whether 
Amtrak's plans and projections for reaching self-sufficiency are 
reasonable, realistic, and based on sound business practices. The 
Office of Inspector General is directed to, and will, oversee this 
assessment, which will begin in April and be completed before the end 
of this fiscal year.
    Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan, which was adopted by its 
Board of Directors on March 10, 1998, contains a number of core 
assumptions that Amtrak believes must materialize in order to achieve 
self-sufficiency. These assumptions, which specify revenue targets, 
expense goals, and funding levels, comprise what Amtrak terms its 
``glidepath'' to self-sufficiency. An essential part of the independent 
assessment involves a close scrutiny of these assumptions.
    First, Amtrak projects annual revenues will increase from $1.7 
billion in fiscal year 1997 to $2.3 billion by the end of fiscal year 
2002.--Most of this revenue increase is expected in fiscal years 2000 
and 2001 and will primarily reflect revenues realized from the 
introduction of high-speed rail service. Total passenger revenue is 
projected to grow by 18 percent in fiscal year 2000 and 10 percent in 
fiscal year 2001; this compares to about 7 percent and 5 percent growth 
projected for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, respectively, and 
actual growth in fiscal year 1997 of 7 percent. Initiating, marketing, 
and operating high-speed rail service entails considerable uncertainty 
over its operating costs and the net revenue it will generate. Amtrak 
believes that its revenue projections for this new service are 
conservative and realistic. Validating Amtrak's forecasting methodology 
and the assumptions behind it are key elements of the independent 
assessment.
    Second, Amtrak plans to limit operating cost growth.--Amtrak 
projects an average annual increase in operating costs of 3.75 percent 
through fiscal year 2002, which is only slightly more than the annual 
average cost growth of 3.6 percent for the last 5 years. Limiting cost 
growth through fiscal year 2002 will be particularly challenging as 
Amtrak incurs significant costs related to starting and operating high-
speed rail service. Amtrak's cost growth projections, however, depend 
on instituting an array of productivity enhancements and cost saving 
measures. The independent assessment will validate the assumptions and 
methods used to project costs for Amtrak's various markets and services 
to determine whether these projections are reasonable.
    Third, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 authorized 
$5.2 billion for Amtrak, of which the Administration proposes to spend 
$2.2 billion for capital assistance between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal 
year 2002. Amtrak also received an additional $2.2 billion in capital 
assistance under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.\1\--In light of 
Amtrak's capital requirements, and its plans to use the assistance 
provided by these two Acts, this level of capital assistance will not 
be sufficient to address all of Amtrak's capital requirements. Many of 
Amtrak's plans for operating cost savings hinge on the successful 
completion of capital projects. For example, Amtrak recently completed 
construction of a new Consolidated National Operations Center in 
Wilmington, Delaware. This project will centralize work formerly 
conducted at four sites and save Amtrak a projected $6.1 million 
between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2003. If funds are not 
available for capital projects such as this, the associated cost 
savings reflected in Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan will not be 
realized. One of the major tasks of the independent assessment is to 
conduct an analysis of Amtrak's existing and projected capital 
requirements and investments throughout its system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provides $2.32 billion in 
capital funds, of which $139 million must be set aside for the six non-
Amtrak States. These are: Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Oklahoma, South 
Dakota, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the current plan is predicated on Amtrak's ability to use 
Federal capital funding for the maintenance of equipment, 
infrastructure, and facilities.--Amtrak's maintenance costs, such as 
repairing track and switches, and reconditioning rail car components, 
have generally been considered operating expenses, and generally have 
not been paid with Federal capital assistance. Complete rebuilding of 
track, purchase of new locomotives and rail cars, and construction of 
new facilities are generally considered capital expenses, and have been 
paid with capital assistance. We are discussing with the Surface 
Transportation Board the definitions of capital and operating expenses 
as they are applied to the freight railroads; we will be sharing our 
findings with you shortly. Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan 
assumes that it will be able to apply a more flexible definition of 
capital, one that will allow it to use its capital grants to pay for 
some of its maintenance expenses. This proposed change has clouded the 
issue of Amtrak's self-sufficiency from Federal operating support.
                      concept of self-sufficiency
    Legislation contemplates that Amtrak will achieve operating self-
sufficiency by fiscal year 2002. Clarity is needed on what this means. 
From Amtrak's perspective, self-sufficiency has meant no operating 
subsidy, but has never meant operating without Federal capital 
assistance.
    If Amtrak is correct, the definition of what constitutes an 
``operating'' expense and what constitutes a ``capital'' expense 
becomes quite significant. This is because the Administration's fiscal 
year 1999 budget does not request operating assistance for Amtrak. 
Instead, the request is for a $621 million capital grant. This is over 
and above the $2.2 billion in capital funds provided by the Taxpayer 
Relief Act. If the change in the definition of capital is approved, 
Amtrak has indicated that as much as $542 million of the requested $621 
million grant may be used to pay for maintenance of equipment, 
infrastructure, and facilities--expenditures formerly considered to be 
in the operating expense category. In fiscal year 1997, Amtrak spent 
$500 million for these maintenance categories.
    We doubt that this change in nomenclature means that Amtrak has 
already achieved ``operating'' self-sufficiency. However, for planning 
purposes, and to avoid controversy as Amtrak proceeds on its glidepath 
to fiscal year 2002, it is important for all parties to have an 
understanding of whether this expanded definition of capital can be 
relied upon in determining: (1) when Amtrak has achieved self-
sufficiency, and (2) what type of expenses Amtrak's passenger and other 
revenues are expected to cover.
                           northeast corridor
    Finally, one of Amtrak's long-standing goals has been to 
significantly increase revenues by the introduction of high-speed rail 
service in the Northeast Corridor. In fiscal year 2001, Amtrak projects 
a net contribution of $150 million from the Northeast Corridor after 
introduction of this service. This contrasts markedly with Amtrak's net 
cash loss of $94 million for the Northeast Corridor in fiscal year 
1997.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ These figures are for core operations and consist principally 
of passenger revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    High-speed rail service is scheduled to start in October 1999. The 
electrification project north of New Haven, Connecticut, has fallen 
behind schedule several times, but Amtrak believes that with the 
current aggressive recovery schedule now in place, the project will 
finish on time for an October start-up. However, performance testing on 
the system that was originally scheduled to be completed in July 1999, 
is now not scheduled to be finished until October 10, 1999. While 
Amtrak plans to test and finish construction of the system 
concurrently, this is still a tight schedule, and Amtrak will have 
little time to correct problems found during testing. If the October 
1999 start-up date slips, Amtrak could miss out on the significant 
revenues generated by high-volume, year-end holiday traffic.
    Even though Amtrak has invested significantly in the infrastructure 
between New York City and Boston, Massachusetts, in preparation for 
high-speed rail service, there are still needs that must be addressed. 
Last fall, a Metro North commuter train pulled down a mile-long section 
of overhead wire from the 90-year old catenary system, stranding 40,000 
travelers for over four hours. In 1997, catenary-related delays 
occurred no fewer than 39 times. Neither Amtrak nor Metro North 
Railroad, which operate along this section of track; nor the 
Connecticut Department of Transportation, which owns the track, have 
any short-term plans to replace this catenary--a project estimated to 
cost $200 million.
    In addition, on the south end, between Washington, D.C. and New 
York City, Amtrak has preliminary estimates that, over the next 20 
years, it will cost between $7 and $9 billion to repair and upgrade the 
infrastructure. Unless Amtrak addresses the infrastructure problems 
along the entire Corridor and improves reliability, ridership and 
revenue are likely to fall short of projections, even with the 
introduction of high-speed rail service, as passengers turn to other 
modes of transportation. A key requirement in the independent 
assessment will be to determine whether Amtrak's funding, plans, and 
schedules are adequate to address capital needs in the Northeast 
Corridor and systemwide.
                               background
         independent assessment of amtrak mandated by congress
    The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, signed by the 
President on December 2, 1997, requires that the Secretary of 
Transportation contract for an independent assessment of the financial 
requirements of Amtrak through fiscal year 2002. The Inspector General 
of the Department of Transportation (DOT) is directed to oversee this 
assessment, which must be completed within 180 days of the contract 
award.
Independent Assessment Will Begin in April
    We are pleased to tell the Subcommittee that a competitive bidding 
process is almost concluded, and a contract will be awarded in April. 
The contractor selected will assemble a team of experts in the fields 
of rail operations and finance, travel and revenue forecasting, and 
financial modeling. The independent assessment will include a review of 
Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan and other documents to assess 
Amtrak's current and future financial requirements. This assessment 
will establish a solid set of numbers that will provide a benchmark for 
assessing Amtrak's financial needs. We will provide the results of this 
assessment to Congress before the end of this fiscal year.
    We assure you that throughout this assessment, the Office of 
Inspector General will be on-site and present with the contractor for 
all phases of the assessment. This will help us fulfill our 
Congressional mandate to oversee this work and to conduct our own 
assessments in the years ahead. We believe the results of this 
assessment will be invaluable to Congress, Amtrak's new Board of 
Directors, and the Amtrak Reform Council in making critical funding and 
strategic business decisions.
Independent Assessment of Amtrak's Financial Condition
    One of the first tasks of the independent assessment will be an 
evaluation of Amtrak's current financial status. This involves 
reviewing Amtrak's accounting systems; its method of allocating costs 
and revenues; and recent trends in costs, revenues, and ridership.
    The independent assessment will provide an understanding of the 
actual costs and revenues associated with specific routes, regional 
areas, and Strategic Business Units. Another task is to assess Amtrak's 
capital funding needs to determine whether Amtrak has planned for 
sufficient funds to achieve its goals. In addition, the assessment will 
review Amtrak's bidding procedures used in securing contracts for 
services other than the provision of intercity passenger rail or mail 
and express service. Such contracts include providing passenger rail 
service or maintenance for local commuter railroads, such as Amtrak's 
recent bid on the overhaul of rail cars for New Jersey Transit. The 
assessment will review Amtrak's methods for estimating its costs of 
providing such service to determine whether Amtrak reflects direct and 
indirect costs in its bids.
    To the extent possible, the assessment will determine whether 
fluctuations in revenue or ridership result directly from Amtrak's 
actions, inactions, or services provided, or whether they are caused by 
forces outside of Amtrak's control. For instance, in fiscal year 1997, 
unanticipated weather-related events, such as Hurricane Fran, severe 
weather conditions on the West Coast, and flooding in the Midwest, 
resulted in $14 million in unforeseen costs. In addition, service 
shutdowns precluded opportunities to earn revenue that might otherwise 
have been realized during these events. Learning where Amtrak stands 
financially, and why, will assist you and Amtrak's new leadership, in 
making decisions about Amtrak's future.
Assessment Will Review Amtrak's Revised Strategic Business Plan
    On March 10, 1998, the Amtrak Board of Directors adopted a revised 
Strategic Business Plan. This plan details Amtrak's efforts to reach 
operating self-sufficiency by the end of fiscal year 2002. The plan was 
revised in response to key internal and external events that have 
occurred in the past year. These events include:
  --Enactment of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, 
        which established an Amtrak Reform Council and mandated this 
        independent assessment;
  --A proposed fiscal year 1999 DOT budget that changes the fundamental 
        structure of Amtrak's traditional Federal support by providing 
        only a capital grant;
  --A change in Amtrak's leadership; and
  --Internal and external events that affected forecasted revenues and 
        expenses.
    Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan identifies a series of 
steps to eliminate the need for Federal operating assistance by the end 
of fiscal year 2002. The steps are based on continued Federal capital 
assistance and a series of revenue-enhancing initiatives.
    The Strategic Business Plan has a number of core assumptions: (1) 
significantly increasing revenue; (2) limiting operating cost growth; 
(3) receiving the fully authorized amount of Federal capital 
assistance; and (4) obtaining the ability to use Federal capital 
assistance for maintenance of equipment, infrastructure, and 
facilities.
Revenue Projections
    One of the most critical assumptions of the revised Strategic 
Business Plan is Amtrak's ability to increase passenger-related and 
other revenues. The plan forecasts a significant growth in passenger-
related revenues through fiscal year 2002. Most of the $576 million 
revenue increase is expected in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 and will 
primarily reflect revenues realized from the introduction of high-speed 
rail service in the Northeast Corridor. Other significant revenue 
increases are related to Amtrak's Express Cargo service (from $3 
million in fiscal year 1997 to $71 million in fiscal year 2002) and 
Mail service (from $66 million in fiscal year 1997 to $86 million in 
fiscal year 2002).
Limiting Cost Growth
    Amtrak projects an average annual increase in operating costs of 
3.75 percent through fiscal year 2002. To accomplish this, Amtrak has a 
series of Business Plan Actions aimed at limiting cost growth. For 
example, productivity enhancements are projected to yield $122 million 
in cost savings in fiscal year 2002. We note that in 1996, Amtrak 
anticipated it could realize immediate savings of between $22 million 
and $30 million by purchasing power wholesale for its own use. Amtrak's 
proposed wholesale power supplier, Enron Power Marketing, has filed a 
petition with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
requesting access to a transmission network that would allow it to 
supply electricity to Amtrak. This matter is currently pending at FERC.
Amtrak's Plan is Dependent on Receiving Fully Authorized Federal 
        Capital Assistance
    A significant part of Amtrak's revenue-enhancing and operating cost 
reduction initiatives depends on whether Amtrak receives fully 
authorized amounts of Federal capital assistance. Although Federal 
capital grants increased in the early 1990's, Amtrak's capital needs 
are still significant. In 1995, Amtrak developed an initial plan to 
reach its goal of zero-operating grants. The plan was predicated on 
receiving an assumed level of Federal capital and operating assistance, 
coupled with revenue-enhancing initiatives, such as high-speed rail 
service in the Northeast Corridor. However, in fiscal years 1995 
through 1997, Amtrak's funding fell short of what was assumed in its 
planning by $139 million.
Ability to Use Federal Capital Assistance for Maintenance of Equipment, 
        Infrastructure, and Facilities
    In its fiscal year 1999 budget, Amtrak has requested permission 
from Congress to use a more flexible definition of the term 
``capital.'' Examples of Amtrak's traditional capital expenditures 
include the purchase of locomotives and passenger rail cars, complete 
rebuilding of track, and construction of new facilities. Maintenance 
costs, such as the cost of repairing track and switches, and 
reconditioning rail car components, are generally considered operating 
expenses and therefore not generally paid with capital funds. If 
Congress approves Amtrak's request, Amtrak intends to use capital 
assistance to cover routine maintenance of equipment, infrastructure, 
and facilities. Using this expanded definition of capital spending, 
Amtrak's ability to function without Federal operating assistance will 
not mean what it did when Amtrak established this goal in 1995.
            amtrak's steps toward achieving self-sufficiency
    Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan contemplates achieving self-
sufficiency by fiscal year 2002. Amtrak defines self-sufficiency as 
eliminating the need for Federal operating assistance but a 
continuation of Federal capital assistance. The Administration's fiscal 
year 1999 budget requests no operating assistance, but does request 
$621 million of capital assistance. Amtrak intends to use up to $542 
million of this capital assistance for maintenance of equipment, 
infrastructure, and facilities--costs generally considered operating 
expenses. The $621 million is over and above the $2.2 billion in 
capital funds provided to Amtrak in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
Independent Assessment to Review Amtrak's Self-Sufficiency Goal
    The independent assessment will determine whether Amtrak's 
financial plans provide the framework for it to operate without Federal 
operating assistance after fiscal year 2002, and to reach other 
financial goals as stated in its revised Strategic Business Plan. In 
addition, the assessment will determine the likelihood that Amtrak will 
be able to maintain its financial status beyond fiscal year 2002. For 
instance, if Amtrak were to borrow heavily in order to reach its goal 
of self-sufficiency, the assessment would determine whether Amtrak's 
revenues and Federal assistance would be sufficient to service the debt 
beyond fiscal year 2002. The assessment will also determine the likely 
effect of deferred maintenance and aging rolling stock on Amtrak's 
continued viability.
    high-speed rail service planned for amtrak's northeast corridor
    The Northeast Corridor from Boston, Massachusetts, to Washington, 
D.C., is 441 miles in length and serves a population of 36 million 
people. Amtrak owns 362 miles of the Corridor and the rest is owned by 
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York, the Connecticut 
Department of Transportation, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
Authority. More than 1,000 trains a day use the Corridor, including 
those of Amtrak, eight commuter railroads,\3\ and four freight 
railroads.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Maryland Rail Commuter Service; Southeastern Pennsylvania 
Transportation Authority; New Jersey Transit; Port Authority Trans-
Hudson Corporation; Long Island Railroad; Metro-North Commuter 
Railroad; Shore Line East; and Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
Authority.
    \4\ Springfield Terminal Railroad; Providence and Worcester 
Railroad; Connecticut Southern Railroad; and Conrail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1991, Congress and Amtrak focused on the improvements needed to 
implement high-speed, 3-hour service between Boston and New York City, 
referred to as the north end. These improvements include the purchase 
of new, high-speed trainsets, installation of an overhead electrical 
system between New Haven, Connecticut, and Boston, and other 
infrastructure improvements between New York City and Boston. When 
these components are complete, trip time on the north end is expected 
to decrease from 4 hours, 45 minutes, to 3 hours, 10 minutes.\5\ The 
high-speed rail project also includes infrastructure improvements 
between Washington, D.C., and New York City, referred to as the south 
end. When the high-speed trainsets begin operating, trip time on the 
south end is expected to be reduced from 3 hours to 2 hours, 45 
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The Congressional mandate calls for 3-hour service, which 
Amtrak expects to offer in later years after significant infrastructure 
improvements are complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Speed Service Begins in 1999
    When all construction between New York and Boston is complete, 
Amtrak will offer high-speed service of 3 hours, 40 minutes, using 
current equipment. This service is scheduled to start in October 1999, 
the same month operational testing is scheduled to be completed. Amtrak 
plans to phase in 18 new, high-speed trainsets capable of achieving 
speeds of 150 miles per hour, further reducing the trip time to 3 
hours, 10 minutes. This is a tight schedule, and if a delay occurs, the 
increased revenue Amtrak expects to realize from high-speed service 
will likely be affected, threatening Amtrak's ability to obtain self-
sufficiency.
Infrastructure Upgrades Are Needed
    Aging infrastructure in all parts of the Northeast Corridor 
continues to affect the reliability of Amtrak's service. Preliminary 
estimates from Amtrak indicate that over the next 20 years, between $7 
and $9 billion will be required to repair and upgrade the south end 
infrastructure. Capital improvements are needed to address the 
significant increases in congestion related to commuter and freight 
traffic, including major rebuilding of track, construction of new 
facilities, installation of additional safety equipment, and other 
infrastructure improvements.
    Commuter rail traffic along the Northeast Corridor has increased 
significantly since 1992. As a result, congestion has slowed service 
for all Corridor users--freight, commuter, and Amtrak. Ridership 
projections for the major commuter operators forecast significant 
growth by the year 2010. For example, in 1992, the Long Island Railroad 
projected ridership growth of 20 percent by fiscal year 2010. Their 
recently revised projection for the same period of time is now a 40 
percent increase. To meet the Congressional mandate of 2 hours, 30 
minute service between New York and Washington, D.C., Amtrak will have 
to make significant, capacity-related investments along the south end.
    The independent assessment of Amtrak will: (1) examine these 
infrastructure needs to support increased use of the Corridor; (2) 
compare infrastructure investments in the Northeast Corridor with 
investments in the rest of Amtrak's system; and (3) determine the 
specific relevance of these infrastructure investments, taking into 
consideration traffic, safety needs, infrastructure condition, and 
other factors that potentially could impact investment decisions.
                               conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, we believe the findings of the independent assessment 
will play a major role in evaluating Amtrak's long-term financial 
situation. It will then be up to Congress, Amtrak's Board of Directors, 
and the Amtrak Reform Council to consider whether Amtrak's plans are 
adequate and sufficient to increase revenue and ridership, reduce 
costs, and invest in the capital projects needed to reach operational 
self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2002. We thank you again for inviting 
us to discuss the Office of Inspector General's work in carrying out 
the Congressional directive for an independent assessment of Amtrak's 
future.

                   Reason for Financial Deterioration

    Senator Shelby. Ms. Scheinberg, your testimony opens by 
stating, as I recall, that in spite of all the funding and 
reforms that have recently been enacted, Amtrak's financial 
condition continues to deteriorate. If so, why is this so?
    Ms. Scheinberg. Amtrak's deteriorating financial condition 
this year is due to reduced revenues and increased costs, which 
has been the problem in past years as well. The recent problems 
include a reduction of about $47 million in their expected 
revenues from their express program. Increased labor costs are 
projected this year to be about $35 million, and there is an 
increase of $16 million in accounts payable that were deferred 
from last fiscal year.
    As a result, Amtrak is going to lose more than $83 million 
more this fiscal year than they lost last fiscal year. The 
funding that Congress provided is primarily for capital 
funding, which will not show benefits for several years. So, of 
concern is that Amtrak is planning to use some of that capital 
money for maintenance expenses to cover these losses.
    Senator Shelby. Can you envision, Ms. Scheinberg, any 
scenario for Amtrak that would get the Federal Government out 
of the business of providing a subsidy?
    Ms. Scheinberg. No, Mr. Chairman; Amtrak will always need 
Federal capital subsidies.
    Senator Shelby. In other words, it is not going to ever be 
self-sufficient as you see it; is that right?
    Ms. Scheinberg. In the sense of capital support, it would 
always need, at a minimum, capital support. Currently, the way 
Amtrak is currently constituted, we see that it will need both 
capital and operating support for the indefinite future. As we 
all know, railroads are very capital-intensive operations and 
require substantial amounts of money to operate. No national 
intercity passenger rail system in the world operates without 
subsidies.
    The other issue is that Amtrak's revised business plan 
assumes that it will continue to need Federal capital and 
operating support throughout the life of its business plan, 
which goes through 2003.
    Senator Shelby. Would you go back to what you mentioned in 
your testimony earlier regarding per passenger subsidy, some of 
the routes?
    Ms. Scheinberg. Right. This is coming from our ongoing 
route analysis work that we are doing at the request of this 
committee and the House Appropriations Committee. Using 
Amtrak's data, we are finding that Amtrak loses about $2 for 
every $1 it earns in revenues in train service; 39 of its 40 
trains operate at a loss, as I mentioned; and of the 39 
trains----
    Senator Shelby. State that again? How many?
    Ms. Scheinberg. Thirty-nine out of the forty Amtrak trains 
operate at a loss.
    Senator Shelby. Thirty-nine out of forty?
    Ms. Scheinberg. Yes; and of that 39, the average loss is 
$53 per passenger.
    Senator Shelby. $53 per passenger subsidy average?
    Ms. Scheinberg. That is not a subsidy, that is a loss.
    Senator Shelby. Loss.
    Ms. Scheinberg. Every time a passenger rides that train, 
the railroad loses $53 on average. But some trains lose a lot 
more than that.
    Senator Shelby. Where do they make that up? A subsidy, 
because----
    Ms. Scheinberg. That is where the Federal support comes in, 
to make that up. And also Amtrak has to borrow on the private 
market.
    Senator Shelby. In your analysis in this area, what 
characteristics have you found that would actually make a rail 
corridor be competitive with air service?
    Ms. Scheinberg. As I mentioned, the only route that does 
cover its operating costs is the Metroliner. And using that as 
a model, which is competitive with air service----
    Senator Shelby. By the Metroliner you are speaking of the 
Metroliner, the Amtrak train from Washington, say, to New York 
to Boston?
    Ms. Scheinberg. Just from Washington to New York City.
    Senator Shelby. OK, New York City.
    Ms. Scheinberg. And those are only the Metroliner trains, 
not the Northeast direct service that goes from Washington to 
New York. But if we use that as a model and look at the 
characteristics to duplicate it or to replicate it, you would 
need a travel time of about 3 hours--that is very important 
to--match air service; a population density that could support 
the route--you need people all along the corridor--and then you 
need a market--a travel market that people would want and need 
to travel along that route.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, last year Amtrak's Reform and 
Accountability Act directed the Secretary to contract for an 
independent assessment of Amtrak's financial requirements 
through the year 2002. The Inspector General's Office has been 
working closely with the candidates who are bidding to perform 
the independent assessment. Also it has developed a statement 
of work that outlines the task to be performed in the 
assessment.
    In your opinion, why is an independent assessment necessary 
and how is this different from the reams of GAO analysis and 
the annual audits of Amtrak's books?

                          Need for Assessment

    Mr. Mead. There are three reasons an independent assessment 
is needed, the most important of which is that the committee 
and the Amtrak Reform Council need hard, verifiable numbers for 
the first time. And generally, prior studies have used Amtrak 
figures to make various projections. There have been some wild 
swings in those projections.
    Second, is the matter of the capital requirements of 
Amtrak. We hear repeatedly that we are going to need capital 
subsidies almost in perpetuity. The key is, if you accept that 
proposition, how much in capital subsidies will be needed?
    Third, there are the revenue and ridership projections. 
These are going to be recalculated if they are judged to be 
incorrect. So we do not plan to just critique them.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, in your work preparing for the 
independent assessment, how accurate have you found Amtrak's 
forecasts of their ridership and their revenues?
    Mr. Mead. Not very accurate, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Not very?
    Mr. Mead. I think in general, we have seen swings from 4 
percent of an understatement all the way to 25 percent of an 
overstatement. It averages out to about 12 percent. Then there 
are certain other finite categories, such as express mail or 
express cargo, where the swings have been $50 or $60 million in 
a given year.
    Also, sometimes Amtrak projects revenues from non-
passenger-related activities--for example, in electric power 
transmission. Amtrak officials thought they were going to be 
able to buy wholesale power and sell that power to other 
companies along the Northeast corridor. That did not 
materialize although they were counting on a lot of money from 
that. Instead, they ended up selling fiber optic lines.
    There are things of that nature that cause wild swings in 
forecasts, sir. And I think GAO's work would bear that out.
    Senator Shelby. Ms. Scheinberg, does GAO have other 
examples of Amtrak's inability to make accurate revenue and 
ridership forecasts in addition?
    Ms. Scheinberg. In addition to what Mr. Mead has just said, 
also Amtrak has been overly optimistic in its ridership 
projections. One example was in 1995 when Amtrak reduced 
service on several routes and did not predict the reduction 
that that action would cause in its ridership. As a result, the 
ridership in 1996 was far below Amtrak's projections. And, in 
1997, the increase in ridership has brought Amtrak back up to 
where it was in about the late 1980's.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, why are you not planning to award 
the contract for the independent financial assessment until 
April?
    Mr. Mead. We are waiting for the Department to give us the 
money.
    Senator Shelby. The money?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, sir; we have been ready for a couple weeks 
now. In fairness, I would note that the contract was supposed 
to be let 15 days after the reform legislation was signed. We 
wanted to be certain about the legality and so we made sure the 
contract was competitively let. But we are ready to go and we 
want this assessment begun so we can provide the results to the 
Hill in a timely way.

                       Amtrak Not Self-Sufficient

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, you have been carefully reviewing 
Amtrak's March 1998 Strategic Business Plan as a baseline 
document for the independent assessment. In your view will 
Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan, if followed, get the railroad 
to a point that they are independent from Federal subsidy by 
2002?
    Mr. Mead. The direct answer to that question is no. I would 
like to make a related point.
    Senator Shelby. Go right ahead.
    Mr. Mead. There is a shifting sands concept at play here on 
what we mean by self-sufficiency. In a way, since Amtrak 
officials have said their goal is to operate without an 
operating subsidy, once we reclassify the type of subsidy we 
are giving them to a capital subsidy, it will appear as though 
they have already met their goal. Well, I think everybody in 
the room knows that they will not have met their goal. So it is 
important to clearly define self-sufficiency.
    The answer, though, is no, Amtrak will not be independent 
of Federal subsidy by 2002. By Amtrak's own records, sir, if 
depreciation is excluded there will be a $77 million cash loss 
in fiscal year 2002.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.

                          Subsidizing Properly

    Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I listened with interest and with respect to each of you 
and I could not help but reminisce for a moment somewhat 
nostalgically for my days when I ran a pretty good-sized 
company. When I left we had 16,000 employees. It was a company 
that I helped build with two other partners. Today that company 
has 30,000 employees, a very successful company. And I learned 
something from my years there, that if I wanted to find out 
what was wrong I could bring in a consultant or have my own 
people review the operation and tell me what was wrong. If I 
wanted the facts, just the facts, I would turn to my accounting 
department and my external auditors as well and ask them for a 
review of the financial statement or prepare a financial 
statement.
    But I never, in all due respect, I never asked either our 
internal operations department or our auditors what we ought to 
do to grow the company or to make more money. That is a 
decision that related to other factors. Yes; it was important 
to know how much was being spent here and how much was being 
spent there and what was wrong here and what was wrong there, 
and you have your respective assignments.
    I hear doubts cast on projections, but I do not hear 
anybody talking about the fact that it takes $10 billion in 
1998 to support our aviation system. I do not hear anybody 
saying that included in our aviation system is an airport that 
you have laying out there. It is like the doctor's operating 
room; he gets it practically for nothing, pays some operating 
expenses, but the infrastructure is all there.
    I think, Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, that Amtrak has 
to be here at some point to answer some of these questions. We 
are asking questions, frankly, I think in the blind, asking 
questions about what goes wrong with the projections. Well, 
something goes wrong with the projections. The weather hits or 
something else hits.
    Go take a ride on the TGV or the Bullet Train and see what 
can happen. We have skinnied this thing down to the point that 
we will never have enough of a satisfactory operation there 
unless we capitalize it properly. We are talking about trains 
that we are hoping can hit 180 miles or 180 kilometers, 150 
miles I guess, somewhere around there, miles an hour, when we 
are looking at we do not have the track straight enough to 
develop that maximum speed.
    We are hoping that we are going to get a 3-hour ride when 
all is done with our northern leg from New Haven, New York, on 
up to Boston, get it down to 3 hours. It is still a lot of time 
for a ride that is about 250 miles long.
    I came down on Amtrak yesterday. They were precisely on 
time. The car rattled, rolled, and shook. I think the equipment 
was probably 50 years old. To me that is young, but that has 
nothing to do with railroad terms. And you just cannot develop 
the kind of ridership that you want to have.
    Ms. Scheinberg, I would say that, in response to your 
answer about whether or not there would be subsidy, you said, 
yes, inevitably there would have to be subsidy, and you in turn 
put out a proposal that said, well, in order to have it fully 
self-sufficient you would have to have population increases all 
along. But the problem is people go to work between 7 and 9 
o'clock in the morning typically and they come home from 5 to 7 
o'clock at night typically, and the French do the same thing we 
do. Maybe they take a little bit longer for lunch, but the fact 
is that there are hours when they travel in volume just like we 
do.
    Thusly, you can never have the balanced load that you would 
like to have. So as a consequence, we have to make some 
allowances for things.
    We talked about definitions, nomenclature, Mr. Mead, and 
you at least appeared to me to be somewhat shocked at the 
notion that maintenance fees, maintenance costs, might be 
construed as capital costs. I would ask you, do you know what 
commuter railroads do, you or Ms. Scheinberg, do you know what 
they do? How do they categorize maintenance costs in commuter 
rail lines?
    Mr. Mead. No; but we will find out. And I would say, 
Senator Lautenberg, that I am not opposed to funding Amtrak's 
maintenance expenses with capital assistance. But the issue is, 
if we are going to call them capital and not have an operating 
subsidy for Amtrak, what goal are we headed toward in terms of 
self-sufficiency or partial self-sufficiency? And that is 
really a policy judgment for the Congress of the United States 
to make.
    Senator Lautenberg. It is self-delusionary.
    Mr. Kiley, do you remember what happened on Metro North? 
How do you classify maintenance expense?
    Mr. Kiley. As a rule, any investment that has the potential 
of extending useful life by more than 5 years is considered a 
capital expenditure.
    Senator Lautenberg. Are you aware of whether that is kind 
of common throughout?
    Mr. Kiley. It is pretty common. There are exceptions to it, 
but it is pretty common.
    Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
    There are a number of questions I would like to submit, Mr. 
Chairman. I will submit them in writing.
    Senator Shelby. Without objection.
    Senator Lautenberg. And I hope that we will be able to have 
a chance to hear Amtrak's rebuttal, or at least responses, to 
some of the statements made here. Thank you very much.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Senator Bennett.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT

    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I thank the witnesses. I think I am agreeing with Senator 
Lautenberg that in a way we have the wrong witnesses and we are 
talking about the wrong things. At least that is kind of what I 
heard. And this is by no means a derogation of your 
contribution here.
    Senator Lautenberg. I would say, if I may, Senator Bennett, 
not the wrong witnesses, but the forum does not permit in my 
view a balanced response.
    Senator Shelby. Let me respond to that if I can. We do try 
to bring forth a balance. What we are looking for is the truth 
and the committee is going to find the truth. We appreciate 
both of your candor here, and that is what we are getting at. 
We are not interested in a stacked deck for Amtrak, we are not 
interested in a stacked deck against Amtrak. But we are going 
to find the truth, and we appreciate your candor. That is the 
kind of committee we are going to run.
    Senator Bennett. When I say the wrong witnesses, I think 
the issues plaguing Amtrak are above your pay grade. I think if 
you started out with a clean sheet of paper approach to the 
issue of transportation challenges to the United States, you 
would clearly say there is a role for a rail passenger system 
in the United States, particularly, maybe exclusively, in those 
heavily congested areas. The Northeast corridor is the cliche, 
but there may be some other areas that cry out for it just as 
much.
    But I think 30 years of experience has taught us that 
running a rail passenger system along freight passenger lines 
does not make very much sense. The way the thing is going to 
work is the one place where it is working now, where you have 
dedicated trackage, you can run 150-mile, 180-mile, 200-mile-
an-hour trains.
    You do not want to run freight trains over tracks that are 
dedicated to go 200 miles an hour. This means a comprehensive 
analysis of where those corridors are, how much it is going to 
cost you to acquire that money, acquire that real estate, what 
the cost-benefit analysis is, and the tradeoffs in getting 
people out of their cars and keeping them off of airplanes.
    The principal competitor to Amtrak is not the airplane, it 
is the automobile. The reason passenger service works better in 
Japan--I have taken the Bullet Train from Tokyo to Nagano for 
the Olympics just recently, a marvelous experience, wonderful 
train, smooth as glass, 150 miles an hour, terrific. One of the 
reasons so many people are on that train is that there is no 
way in the world they are going to get there in their 
automobile. The Japanese do not have an interstate highway 
system that makes it attractive for you to get in your own car 
and drive to the ski resort.
    So if you are going to go from Tokyo to Nagano, you love 
the Bullet Train. But in America you ride Amtrak and it is old 
equipment and it is a rattly experience, and the food is not 
wonderful, and you have to rent a car when you get there, and 
you say, you know, next time I am going to get on the 
interstate highway and cruise at 75 miles an hour and I am 
going to have my own car when I get there, and I can eat where 
I want to eat, and I can pull off and stop.
    That is the main competitor, and we need to decide as a 
matter of national policy where are we going to put rail 
transport and subsidize it in a capital investment that makes 
sense.
    We have had this conversation about Amtrak every year for 
30 years, and it is time for a serious policy decision about 
rail passenger traffic in congested areas of this country that 
is above your pay grade and may be above ours. But I think we 
are calling for some secretarial leadership and probably some 
Presidential leadership, working with the leadership of 
Congress, to say where are we going to put passenger rail 
transportation as a matter of transportation policy priority, 
how much is it going to cost, what are the tradeoffs, and then 
say, having made that decision, we will put the money behind 
that decision, and other portions of the historic rail 
passenger network that have been with us for all these years 
will disappear because they do not fit the master plan.
    We are doing this a band-aid approach, not a master plan 
approach, and I think we are going to continue to struggle 
along with band-aids and arguments until we step back and say, 
what do we as a Nation want to do in this area?
    I am very supportive of rail passengers, but I am getting a 
little tired of the band-aid arguments back and forth, and I 
would hope we would begin to see that kind of overall 
leadership, hopefully out of this administration, if not this 
one then the next. But this business of saying, well, we can 
get through this year with this much money and we can patch it 
up next year with that much money, and we never take the hard 
decision of saying we are going to have to cut off this and we 
are going to have to fund that, is frustrating to me.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton.

                           Amtrak's Ridership

    Senator Gorton. You, Ms. Scheinberg, say in your written 
statement that there is just one route that operates, that has 
an operating profit, New York to Washington, DC, and that maybe 
Boston to New York will when the conversion is completed. In 
your view is there any other Amtrak route in addition to those 
two that can realistically be expected to run at an operating 
profit as we have traditionally defined that term?
    Ms. Scheinberg. No other route presently comes close to 
being able to operate at a profit. The reason the Metroliner 
from Washington to New York can operate at a profit is because 
of the price, and the reason the passengers are willing to pay 
the price is because of the service they get. They get to New 
York in 3 hours. It is high speed. It is what they want. If you 
can duplicate that in other corridors to match the air time, in 
the sense that a 3-hour train ride pretty much competes with a 
1-hour plane ride when the train goes from the middle of one 
city to the middle of another city and the airplanes have to go 
to the outlying airports. In other corridors where you have 
sufficient passengers who are going to make that trip and the 
timing is really important to them, you can, I think, replicate 
Metroliner results outside of the New York to Washington route.
    Senator Gorton. Well, is there any such corridor that has 
that potential?
    Ms. Scheinberg. We have not studied this issue, but I think 
that there are potential corridors. A study would need to be 
done looking for the markets and the population along the 
corridors.
    Amtrak itself has just announced that it is about to 
undertake a study that would look at its own route system, what 
markets exist, and what the passenger ridership wants. I think 
as a result of Amtrak's study we could come up with some 
answers for your question.
    Senator Gorton. It is hard for me to think of any other 
such corridor with a population, with a sufficient population 
and a sufficiently small distance between major metropolitan 
areas where you would be competitive with air. Certainly Los 
Angeles-San Francisco would not fall into that category, would 
it?
    Ms. Scheinberg. The California routes have done a lot 
better recently, but I am not sure if they could get to the 
point of self-sufficiency. They are being supported by the 
State as well. The Amtrak routes do get support from 
California.
    Senator Gorton. Let me put a question to both of you. If we 
were to abandon Amtrak and simply pass a law that required the 
owners of present rail trackage in the United States to offer 
its use, the railroad owners, the use of their facilities to 
any organization that wanted to run passenger service on the 
same terms and conditions that they now offer it to Amtrak, how 
much rail passenger service would there be in the United 
States?
    Ms. Scheinberg. Senator Gorton, we undertook a study 
recently--it just came out a couple weeks ago--that looks at 
the possible implications of an Amtrak liquidation. We talked 
to States and commuter railroads that work with Amtrak now and 
asked them what would happen if Amtrak no longer existed. We 
got mixed responses. This is similar to your question. That is 
why I am bringing this out.
    In the Northeast corridor the States would be very 
interested in continuing the service. Their concerns would be 
on the costs to maintain the infrastructure. It goes back to 
the capital issues that Senator Lautenberg was alluding to.
    Outside of the Northeast corridor, there was some interest 
in maintaining local service, but very little interest in 
maintaining long-distance service.
    Mr. Mead. This is the first time in Amtrak's history that 
Congress and the administration have departed from a kind of 
hand-in-glove approach to capital. Until you get a good capital 
infrastructure, there would be very few takers, I would think, 
in the private or State sector. But we are now positioned to 
pump a lot of capital into our train system, and I would think 
that at the end of the next 4 years we would be able to give a 
much more responsive answer to the question you just posed.
    Senator Gorton. Well, it sounds to me like the answer is, 
even after the next 4 years, you would have Washington to New 
York to Boston and that would be it, even after all that 
capital investment has been made.
    Mr. Mead. It may be. I do not know of anyplace else in the 
world where train travel totally makes ends meet. If there is 
one, I am not aware of it, sir.
    Senator Gorton. But outside the Northeast corridor, there 
is no other place in the United States with the population 
density that exists in Western Europe and Japan, is there?
    Mr. Mead. There are some markets in California.
    Senator Gorton. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, as I have felt 
for years, there is no financial justification for this at all. 
I speak as one who represents--as I told my friends on the 
Commerce Committee, two summers ago I took the train from 
Chicago to Seattle at one time when it was absolutely full. 
There was not a seat available in it.
    Of course, it took 44 hours as against 4, 3 or 4. It cost 
more. It was less comfortable.
    Senator Shelby. Have you taken it since?
    Senator Gorton. And I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine that 
they could have done anything but lose $50 a passenger or maybe 
more than that per passenger on it.
    If we want to keep it going for sentimental reasons, that 
is one thing. But to think that we are ever going to make it 
have an operating profit in my view is a total pipedream.
    Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I?
    Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
    Senator Lautenberg. Just one comment for my friend from 
Washington. That is that nearly 70 percent of the increased 
ridership in 1997 on Amtrak came in the west coast area. 
Another figure that may be of interest to you is that the 
Empire Builder, the Chicago to Seattle train, had a 65-percent 
increase in just 1 year.
    I think what happens is, unless the system can be inviting 
enough--and that means at higher speeds, especially in the 
heavily used areas--we are not going to attract a lot of 
traffic. The fare now from Newark or New York to Washington on 
an airplane is $200. Now, you know where you can fly for $200. 
If you can book it enough in advance, et cetera, you can 
probably cross the ocean or at least cross the United States 
for the same thing.
    But if we had serious high-speed rail that meant we would 
be in New York in an hour and a half to an hour and three 
quarters, I would tell you that it would help clear the skies 
as well as the highways.
    Senator Gorton. Well, in my view there is no way that the 
Empire Builder can ever be remotely competitive with air travel 
because it is too long. I think that my own analogy is that we 
no longer go by ship across the ocean as a method of 
transportation. We do it as a part of a tour group, and maybe 
someone can put together such luxurious railcars and such nice 
destinations where they stop for a while as to have land 
cruises in the way we have sea cruises today.
    But to talk about cross-continental travel by rail as being 
a practical transportation alternative, it just simply is not 
going to happen.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you. We thank you.
    Senator Bennett.

                           Failure of Routes

    Senator Bennett. I cannot resist getting into this for just 
a minute and making this comment, because I have had some 
personal experience with it. I see from your testimony and 
submissions that they are talking about Los Angeles to Las 
Vegas. Los Angeles to Las Vegas has been tried over and over 
again. I will venture the prediction that Los Angeles to Las 
Vegas will fail over and over again, because once again the 
competition--if you are willing to spend the time, you can get 
there in your car just as rapidly as you can on the train. And 
when you get to Las Vegas, you are going to want your car, 
because you may want to take a break from the gaming tables 
long enough to go out and look at Boulder Dam or whatever.
    You take your family with you or your significant other or 
whatever, it is a whole lot cheaper. The time is the same and 
the convenience at the other end is so much greater if you have 
your own car.
    The contrast with the Northeast corridor is stark. I used 
to have an office in Washington and an office in New York, and 
you are absolutely right, the Metroliner was the preferred way 
to go, because I could get to my office in downtown Manhattan 
in the same period of time by the Metroliner that I could on 
the airplane. I did not have to deal with a taxi driver. I 
could sit on the Metroliner and read, do work, eat. When the 
Metroliner first started, you could get a steak on the 
Metroliner that was as good as you could get in many New York 
restaurants.
    And I do not want a car in Manhattan. The last thing in the 
world you want in Manhattan is to be stuck with a car.
    So the highway competition is not there, and the airway 
competition can be met. Somebody ought to be making these kinds 
of strategic decisions in the way the Senator from New Jersey 
was talking about. When he talks about growing his business, he 
calls in the marketing people, who ask the fundamental 
question, what does the customer want. And so far I am not 
finding anybody in Amtrak asking the question, what does the 
customer want.
    I think if we asked that question, what does the citizen 
want or what does the customer want, we will say: Forget the 
experiment between Los Angeles and Las Vegas and buy the right 
of way to build us a high-speed dedicated roadway in the 
Northeast corridor and watch it make money over time, money in 
terms of the European-Japanese model that says, yes, these are 
subsidized, but the societal cost is more than recovered in 
terms of pollution and congestion and all of those kinds of 
things, and quit fooling around with the nostalgia that says we 
are a railroading nation and we must continue to be for the 
next 200 or 300 years.
    Mr. Mead. You know, one of the interesting things about the 
Las Vegas-Los Angeles run is that was under consideration some 
years ago as a magnetic levitation route because it was one of 
the few city pairs in the United States where you could go in a 
straight line with few or no stops, which you need pretty much 
for maglev.
    In fairness to Amtrak, they have in the last several years 
been doing a customer satisfaction and desires type survey, and 
they report on some aspects of that in their annual report.
    Senator Bennett. I stand by my prediction.
    Senator Shelby. Do you have another statement, Ms. 
Scheinberg? Do you have anything else?
    Ms. Scheinberg. I was just going to tell Senator Bennett 
that Amtrak has just decided to conduct a market analysis to 
look at its customer base on its routes. It is just about to do 
that, and it will take quite a bit of time. But hopefully it 
will get at the issues that you are talking about, because I 
agree with you that those are the issues that are going to make 
the difference.

                          Submitted Questions

    Senator Shelby. We thank you both for appearing. We 
appreciate your candor and your statements. Thank you so much. 
We will submit additional questions to be answered for the 
record.
    Ms. Scheinberg. Thank you.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
                       General Accounting Office
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
    Question. At the request of the conferees on last year's bill, the 
GAO is currently working on a complete analysis of Amtrak's route 
structure. The report is due May 15th. Please provide a list of 
Amtrak's routes, ranked by financial performance in fiscal year 1997, 
including the name of the train, the route endpoints, the operating 
ratio, and profit or loss on a per passenger basis.
    Answer. The requested information follows:

  TABLE 1.--FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AMTRAK'S ROUTES, FISCAL YEAR 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Profit or
                  Name/route                     Operating    (loss) per
                                                 ratio \1\    passenger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metroliners: New York, NY-Washington, DC......         0.94           $5
San Joaquins: Oakland, CA-Bakersfield, CA.....         1.23         (11)
Carolinian: New York, NY-Charlotte, NC........         1.45         (27)
Piedmont: Raleigh, NC-Charlotte, NC...........         1.48         (42)
Capitols: Roseville, CA-San Jose, CA..........         1.52         (15)
Auto Train: Lorton, VA-Sanford, FL............         1.56        (118)
Northeast Direct: Boston, MA or Springfield,           1.65         (29)
 MA-Washington, DC or Richmond, VA............
Pacific Northwest Corridor: Eugene, OR-                1.76         (26)
 Seattle, WA or Vancouver, Canada.............
Illini: Chicago, IL-Carbondale, IL............         1.82         (47)
Kansas City-St. Louis: Kansas City, MO-St.             1.91         (45)
 Louis, MO....................................
Southwest Chief: Chicago, IL-Los Angeles, CA..         1.92        (180)
San Diegans: San Diego, CA-Los Angeles, CA or          1.96         (23)
 Santa Barbara, CA............................
Vermonter: Washington, DC-St. Albans, VT......         2.00         (58)
Lake Shore Limited: Chicago, IL-Boston, MA or          2.01         (90)
 New York, NY.................................
Empire: New York, NY-Albany or Buffalo, NY....         2.03         (38)
Adirondack: New York, NY-Montreal, Canada.....         2.10         (57)
Three Rivers: New York, NY-Chicago............         2.18        (138)
Silver Meteor: New York, NY-Miami, FL.........         2.18        (120)
Empire Builder: Chicago, IL-Seattle, WA or             2.20        (136)
 Portland, OR.................................
Illinois Zephyr: Chicago, IL-Quincy, IL.......         2.21         (61)
International: Chicago, IL-Toronto, Canada....         2.23         (47)
New York-Harrisburg: New York, NY-Harrisburg,          2.30         (37)
 PA...........................................
California Zephyr: Chicago, IL-Emeryville (San         2.24        (149)
 Francisco), CA...............................
Capitol Limited: Chicago, IL-Washington, D.C..         2.27        (133)
Pere Marquette: Chicago, IL-Grand Rapids, MI..         2.43         (51)
Coast Starlight: Los Angeles, CA-Seattle, WA..         2.43         (92)
Philadelphia-Harrisburg: Philadelphia, PA-             2.15         (22)
 Harrisburg, PA...............................
Silver Star: New York, NY-Miami, FL...........         2.47        (143)
Silver Palm: \2\ New York, NY-Miami, FL.......         2.48        (163)
Crescent: New York, NY-New Orleans, LA........         2.56        (163)
Chicago-St. Louis: Chicago, IL-St. Louis, MO..         2.58         (59)
Clockers: New York, NY-Philadelphia, PA.......         2.59         (11)
Pennsylvanian: New York, NY-Pittsburgh, PA....         2.70         (53)
Empire-Ethan Allen Express: \3\ New York, NY-          2.75         (79)
 Rutland, VT..................................
City of New Orleans: Chicago, IL-New Orleans,          2.78        (130)
 LA...........................................
Hiawathas: Chicago, IL-Milwaukee, WI..........         2.92         (50)
Texas Eagle: Chicago, IL-San Antonio, TX......         3.11        (189)
Sunset Limited: Los Angeles, CA-Orlando, FL...         3.16        (284)
Cardinal: Chicago, IL-Washington, DC..........         3.29        (136)
Chicago-Pontiac: Chicago, IL-Pontiac, MI......         3.66         (66)
                                               -------------------------
      Total route system......................     \4\ 1.86         (47)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The profit or loss per passenger in this table reflects Amtrak's
  fully allocated costs, which include all general ledger costs related
  to running intercity passenger trains. It does not show the cash
  impact on Amtrak's bottom line of operating each particular route due
  to costs that are shared between routes and the impact travel on one
  route that affects travel and revenues of other routes. Three routes
  that Amtrak closed during fiscal year 1997 are excluded.
\1\ A route's operating ratio is its expenses divided by its revenues.
  An operating ratio less than 1.0 means that the route was profitable,
  while an operating ratio greater than 1.0 means that the route lost
  money. A ratio greater than 2.0 means that the route's expenses were
  at least two times greater than its revenues during the fiscal year.
\2\ Service was introduced in November 1996.
\3\ Service was introduced in December 1996.
\4\ Operating ratio for Amtrak's core intercity passenger services.
Source: GAO analysis of Amtrak's data.

    Question. In your route analysis work, what characteristics have 
you found would actually make a rail corridor be competitive with air 
service?
    Answer. There may be a number of characteristics that could make 
intercity passenger rail service competitive with air service. We have 
identified six conditions. First, a rail corridor would need sufficient 
population to support travel on the route. Second, there should be 
reasons for prospective train riders to want to travel the route, such 
as business travel. Third, the duration of the trip should be 
relatively short, say no longer than 3-4 hours. Fourth, the frequency 
of service should be such to make rail travel a desirable alternative 
for the prospective traveler. Fifth, departure and arrival times should 
be convenient and fit the travelers' needs. Finally, rail service must 
be competitively priced.
    Question. How would the liquidation of Amtrak affect commuter and 
freight railroads? How about splitting the operating and infrastructure 
activities into two separate entities--how would this affect commuter 
and freight railroads?
    Answer. In our March 2, 1998, report entitled ``Intercity Passenger 
Rail: Issues Associated With a Possible Amtrak Liquidation'' (GAO/RCED-
98-60), we found that a liquidation of Amtrak could disrupt intercity 
and other passenger rail service as well as freight railroad 
activities. In particular, for both intercity and commuter rail, issues 
associated with accessing track and stations--and the cost of such 
access--would largely determine the extent of service, if any, 
including service on the Northeast Corridor. For example, although 
officials from 3 states we contacted that were not on the Northeast 
Corridor and did not provide financial support for intercity passenger 
rail service indicated an interest in maintaining service in the 
absence of Amtrak, they doubted it would occur because of the 
potentially high cost of continuing service and possible difficulties 
in negotiating access to tracks with freight railroads. They also cited 
a lack of an incentive in keeping such service going if Amtrak's 
national route network were ended. States that currently provide 
financial support for intercity passenger rail service may have 
somewhat more interest in maintaining such service. However, even these 
states raised questions about cost and access to tracks. Finally, 
commuter railroads also mentioned potential difficulties in gaining 
access to tracks and stations and the cost of such access. How these 
problems might be dealt with is unclear. Three states we talked to on 
the Northeast Corridor said they would have difficulty in coming up 
with additional money to pay for passenger rail service if Amtrak went 
out of business and one of the states--New York--said it would look to 
the federal government to pay any costs it might incur in the aftermath 
of an Amtrak liquidation.
    Commuter rail authorities that contract their service to Amtrak and 
freight railroads that operate on the Northeast Corridor could also 
face difficulties from an Amtrak liquidation. The commuter rail 
authorities would have to find new operators--a task some said could be 
time consuming and ultimately more expensive than their current 
arrangement and freight railroads using the Northeast Corridor would 
have to find a way to continue using the Corridor to provide service or 
potentially face severe economic hardship from the loss of business. 
These railroads currently have an easement to use the Northeast 
Corridor to provide service. Two freight railroads we talked to said 
they would take whatever action was necessary to ensure they could 
continue to exercise their easement to provide freight service.
    We have not evaluated how splitting Amtrak into separate operating 
and infrastructure companies might affect future intercity, commuter, 
or freight railroad operations and costs.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
    Question. GAO has been scrutinizing Amtrak's finances and 
accounting systems for at least two years. In this time, have you found 
Amtrak's process and methods to be sound and honest?
    Answer. As we have indicated in our reports on Amtrak, data which 
we have obtained and analyzed has largely been provided by Amtrak. We 
have not independently verified this data nor made an independent 
assessment of its soundness. However, Amtrak employs an independent 
accounting firm--Price Waterhouse LLP--to annually audit its financial 
statements and issue an opinion about whether Amtrak's consolidated 
balance sheet and related financial reports are presented fairly. Such 
an audit includes, among other things, examining, on a test basis, 
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial 
statements. For 1997, Amtrak received an unqualified opinion on its 
financial statements.
    Question. Is Amtrak's updated plan, adopted this spring, 
incorporating more information on the level of federal support and 
assumptions regarding the labor agreement, considerably more 
conservative than the original Board-passed plan?
    Answer. Amtrak believes that its revised plan is conservative and 
realistic. For example, Amtrak states that the revised plan ``. . . 
reflects a much more conservative Express forecast based on a more 
realistic set of assumptions regarding operational, market, and legal 
constraints. It also includes an estimate of the cash impact of all 
labor unions assuming settlement in July of 1998.'' The plan is also 
predicated on full funding of the Administration's budget request 
(through 2003) and flexibility that would allow appropriated funds to 
be used for maintenance expenses.
    Question. If this Committee, at a minimum, fully funds the 
Administration's fiscal year 1999 funding request of $621 million in 
capital with flexibility, can Amtrak remain solvent and preserve the 
Taxpayer Relief Act funds for high rate of return projects?
    Answer. Amtrak's March 1998 revised Strategic Business Plan 
indicates that full funding of the Administration's fiscal year 1999 
funding request would allow it to remain solvent through 2003 and stay 
within its existing lines of short-term credit. This is assuming that 
business plan actions are accomplished and that revenue and cost 
projections contained in the plan are achieved. According to the 
revised business plan, fully funding the Administration's budget 
request and providing flexibility that would allow appropriated funds 
to be used for maintenance expenses would also allow Amtrak to preserve 
Taxpayer Relief Act funds for high rate-of-return projects. However, 
Amtrak plans to temporarily use Taxpayer Relief Act funds--about $100 
million in fiscal year 1998, $317 million in fiscal year 1999, and $200 
million in fiscal year 2000--for allowed maintenance of existing 
equipment to help address cash flow problems in each of these years. 
According to Amtrak, the temporary use of Taxpayer Relief Act funds for 
allowed equipment maintenance will help the corporation avoid 
additional borrowing from its credit lines over the original planned 
amount (about $100 million each year).
    Question. What, in your view, will happen to Amtrak's financial 
situation if this Committee provides substantially less than the levels 
requested by the President over the next five years?
    Answer. Providing Amtrak with less funding than that requested in 
the President's budget would likely require Amtrak to substantially 
increase its revenues; reduce its costs to stay within planned net loss 
and cash flow targets specified in its March 1998 revised Strategic 
Business Plan; and/or make increased use of Taxpayer Relief Act funds 
for allowed maintenance expenses.
    Implementing these options could be difficult and/or have 
significant financial impacts on Amtrak. Increasing revenue or reducing 
costs could be particularly difficult in the short-term. As we 
testified, Amtrak has sharply reduced its expected revenue from the 
pilot express program (about $47 million in fiscal year 1998) and 
revenues from the new high-speed rail program will not be received for 
another 2 years. Amtrak is also facing wage increases from its recent 
agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees--about 
$3 million to $5 million in fiscal year 1998. According to Amtrak, if 
this agreement were extended to Amtrak's 12 other labor unions, 
Amtrak's costs could increase between $60 and $70 million per year (net 
of one-time payments and any productivity gains negotiated with the 
unions). Using Taxpayer Relief Act funds for allowed maintenance 
expenses will likely reduce the amount of money available for high 
rate-of-return investments.
    Question. What is the single most important thing we can do here in 
Congress to ensure Amtrak's long-term financial survival?
    Answer. As we concluded in 1995, the Congress needs to decide on 
the nation's expectations for intercity passenger rail service and the 
scope of Amtrak's mission in providing this service. These decisions 
require defining a national route network, determining the extent to 
which the federal government would contribute funds, and deciding on 
the way any remaining deficits would be covered. We believe these 
conclusions continue to ring true. Given the tools provided in the 
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, now is the time for the 
Congress and the new Amtrak Reform Board to work together to consider 
and act on the issues that will chart Amtrak's future.
    Question. I understand you have surveyed some states regarding 
whether they want to take over services currently served by Amtrak. 
What were the states' expectations in terms of paying for the costs 
associated with managing the system and maintaining the infrastructure? 
What happens to the costs of operating a system? Did the states expect 
any problems with forming agreements with other potential partners 
along a corridor?
    Answer. In our report on the possible liquidation of Amtrak 
(``Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues Associated With a Possible 
Liquidation of Amtrak'' (GAO/RCED-98-60, Mar. 2, 1998)) we found that 
states and commuter authorities that provide passenger rail service 
following an Amtrak liquidation could bear the costs to operate, 
maintain, and rehabilitate infrastructure, such as tracks and stations, 
that Amtrak currently pays. How much of the cost might be assumed by 
these other parties is uncertain because, in part, it would depend on 
such factors as the extent to which these other parties needed the 
infrastructure, the price the new owner might charge for use of the 
facilities, and the level at which the infrastructure would be 
maintained. Some of the states we talked to indicated they would have a 
difficult time coming up with the additional money for passenger rail 
service that could be shifted to them if Amtrak were to go out of 
business. At least one state, New York, said it would look to the 
federal government to help pay these costs.
    We also reported that an Amtrak liquidation could disrupt intercity 
and other passenger rail service as well as freight railroad 
activities. In particular, for both intercity and commuter rail, issues 
associated with accessing track and stations--and the cost of such 
access--would largely determine the extent of service, if any, 
including on the Northeast Corridor. Officials from 3 states we 
contacted that were not on the Northeast Corridor and did not provide 
financial support for intercity passenger rail service indicated an 
interest in maintaining service in the absence of Amtrak but doubted it 
would occur because of the potentially high cost of continuing service 
and difficulties in negotiating access to tracks with freight 
railroads. They also cited a lack of an incentive in keeping such 
service going if Amtrak's national route network were ended. States 
that provide financial support for intercity passenger rail service may 
have more of an interest in continuing such service but also raised 
concerns about cost and access to tracks. Finally, commuter railroads 
also mentioned potential difficulties in gaining access to tracks and 
stations and the cost of such access. Commuter rail authorities that 
contract their service to Amtrak and freight railroads that operate on 
the Northeast Corridor could also face difficulties. For example, 
commuter rail agencies that contract their service to Amtrak would have 
to find a new operator--a task some said could be time consuming and 
ultimately be more expensive than their current arrangement. Freight 
railroads using the Northeast Corridor could also have to find a way to 
continue using the Corridor without losing business.
    Use of interstate compacts between two or more states (as 
authorized by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997) may be 
a way of preserving service. However, implementation could be 
difficult. Some of the states we talked to expressed concerns about 
using such compacts to maintain intercity passenger rail service citing 
such problems as reaching agreements on the allocation of costs, 
establishing train schedules, and determining station stops. Two states 
we talked to--Illinois and Florida--had direct experience in trying to 
work with other states in establishing a long-distance intercity 
passenger rail route. In both instances the route was not established 
because there were too many disputes among the participating states 
over cost and operational matters. An official from one state--
Illinois--said interstate compacts might be feasible but only on routes 
that are relatively short--say 3 to 4 hour trip times.
    Question. The Reason Foundation and the Intercity Passenger Rail 
Working Group, the bipartisan advisory group convened by the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last Spring, point to 
the privatization of British Rail, as an example of a successful 
passenger rail privatization effort. However, according to a January 
25th article in the London Sunday Times, service has actually 
deteriorated and costs to British taxpayers are higher than before 
privatization. In fact, this article states that passenger surveys find 
``public confidence in Britain's rail service is at an all-time low,'' 
and that the new train operating companies receive more than twice as 
much in subsidies as British Rail received when it was government-
owned.
    a. Given the problems with British Rail, would you predict that a 
privatized Amtrak would result in poorer service at higher taxpayer 
cost?
    Answer. We have not studied the experience of British Rail or other 
countries' privatization efforts. As a result, we cannot offer an 
opinion on how costs and service might change, if at all, if Amtrak 
were privatized. In our February 6, 1995, report entitled ``Intercity 
Passenger Rail: Financial and Operating Conditions Threaten Amtrak's 
Long-Term Viability'' (GAO/RCED-95-71), we concluded that privatizing 
Amtrak might be complicated by a number of factors. First, it is not 
clear what would be privatized since Amtrak owns very little track 
outside the Northeast Corridor. Second, because passenger train 
services might be inherently unprofitable, private, for-profit firms 
are unlikely to be interested in such business without some government 
assistance. Third, different degrees of privatization are possible, so 
that it is necessary to define what is meant by privatization. Finally, 
privatizing Amtrak is not likely to result in successfully preserving a 
nationwide intercity passenger rail system.
    b. According to a study by the Union Bank of Switzerland, Britain 
has the highest rail tickets in the world. What would be the effect of 
privatization on rail ticket prices in the U.S.?
    Answer. We have not studied this issue and, therefore, cannot 
venture an opinion.
                                 ______
                                 
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
    Question. You did provide a fairly gloomy picture of Amtrak's 
finances. If we do fully fund the Administration's request: $621 
million in capital with the flexibility in fiscal year 1999, $571 in 
2000, $521 in 2001, etc., can Amtrak remain solvent and preserve the 
TRA for high rate of return projects?
    Answer. Amtrak's March 1998 revised Strategic Business Plan 
indicates that funding the corporation at the amounts requested in the 
Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget would allow it to remain 
solvent through 2003 and stay within its existing lines of short-term 
credit. This is assuming business plan actions are accomplished and 
revenue and cost projections are achieved. According to the revised 
business plan, fully funding the Administration's budget request and 
providing flexibility in how appropriated funds can be spent would also 
allow Amtrak to preserve Taxpayer Relief Act funds for high rate-of-
return projects. Amtrak plans to temporarily use Taxpayer Relief Act 
funds--about $100 million in fiscal year 1998, $317 million in fiscal 
year 1999, and $200 million in fiscal year 2000--for allowed 
maintenance of existing equipment to help meet its short- term 
financial needs. According to Amtrak, the temporary use of Taxpayer 
Relief Act funds for allowed equipment maintenance will help the 
corporation avoid additional borrowing from its credit lines over 
original planned amounts (about $100 million each year) and help the 
corporation avert bankruptcy.
    Question. Are there alternatives to the DOT/Amtrak/OMB proposal 
that you know of that would work better?
    Answer. Our work has focused on analyzing the likely effects of 
current proposals. In our February 6, 1995, report entitled ``Intercity 
Passenger Rail: Financial and Operating Conditions Threaten Amtrak's 
Long-Term Viability'' (GAO/RCED-95-71), we concluded that the Congress 
needed to decide on the nation's expectations for intercity passenger 
rail service and the scope of Amtrak's mission in providing that 
service. We believe that this is the right time for Amtrak's new Reform 
Board to work with the Congress to consider and act on the issues that 
will chart Amtrak's future.
    Question. It was said by Mr. Mead and yourself that Amtrak's 
business forecast for this year was too ``rosy,'' and that due to 
planned labor settlements and a reduction in the revenue forecast for 
mail and express, they will come in under their targets.
    However, didn't all that come from a plan that was adopted prior to 
the passage of the reauthorization bill last year, prior to enactment 
of the appropriations last year when they still didn't know what 
funding they would receive for fiscal year 1998, and prior to the 
approval of the TRA funds? Is Amtrak's current forecast--adopted this 
Spring--more conservative than the original Board-passed plan?
    Answer. Amtrak's September 1997 Strategic Business Plan was adopted 
by Amtrak's Board about one week before the start of the new fiscal 
year. As such, Amtrak would have been in a position to include 
congressional budget marks. In addition, Amtrak's September 1997 plan 
incorporated planned actions that included the effects of both 
receiving or not receiving Taxpayer Relief Act funds (recognizing that 
the receipt of Taxpayer Relief Act funds was preconditioned on the 
enactment of reform legislation that was ultimately enacted).
    Amtrak believes that its revised March 10, 1998 Strategic Business 
Plan is conservative and realistic. For example, Amtrak states that the 
revised plan ``. . . reflects a much more conservative Express forecast 
based on a more realistic set of assumptions regarding operational, 
market, and legal constraints. It also includes an estimate of the cash 
impact of all labor unions assuming settlement in July of 1998.'' The 
plan is also predicated on full funding the Administration's budget 
request (through 2003) and flexibility that would allow appropriated 
funds to be used for maintenance expenses.
                                 ______
                                 
                      Office of Inspector General
               Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
                  new definition of capital assistance
    Question. Your testimony states that in fiscal year 1999, under the 
new definition of capital assistance, Amtrak can use $542 million for 
operating expenses. Does $542 million represent the amount that is 
available for spending or the amount that will be used?
    Answer. According to Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan, Amtrak 
intends to use up to $542 million of the $621 million proposed in the 
President's fiscal year 1999 budget for operating expenses, 
specifically for maintenance of equipment and infrastructure.
    Question. If we assume the level of capital federal funding 
proposed by the Administration is appropriated and the Federal Transit 
Administration's definition of capital is used over the five years of 
Amtrak's revised business plan, will Amtrak decrease its reliance on 
federal support for operating costs over that time period?
    Answer. There are no funds requested in the President's fiscal year 
1999 budget for Amtrak operating assistance. However, according to 
Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan, which assumes the use of the 
``transit'' definition of capital, Amtrak will sustain a net operating 
loss and need operating assistance every year through fiscal year 2002, 
as shown in the table below.

                                    OPERATING LOSSES--FISCAL YEARS 1998-2002
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1998       1999       2000       2001       2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Operating Loss.......................................    544,948    758,257    641,156    589,924    592,673
Total Operating Assistance Needed........................     98,536    281,819    139,909     74,401     77,266
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amtrak plans to obtain the needed operating assistance through 
short-term borrowing. Amtrak has not calculated the financial impact 
that would result if it is not permitted to use the ``transit'' 
definition of capital.
    Question. Will the application of the FTA's definition of capital 
inherently promote better business practices?
    Answer. Yes. Under the current approach, Amtrak may be inclined to 
defer maintenance on some equipment to save scarce operating funds, 
knowing that although this may shorten the equipment's service life, 
the replacement of the equipment could be financed by capital grants. 
The decision on whether to repair or replace capital goods should be 
based on a sound economic analysis of which option is the least costly 
overall and not on the type of funds available.
    Question. Do you support this change in definition?
    Answer. We support the change in the definition of capital to 
include maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. It must be 
recognized, however, that this change will allow Amtrak to use 
``capital funding'' to pay what were previously operating costs. 
Congress must clearly stipulate whether or not the requirement for 
self-sufficiency by 2002 allows for continued funding of maintenance of 
equipment and infrastructure from capital funds.
    Question. Amtrak's revised business plan shows that it will need a 
little over $60 million in operating support in fiscal year 2002. Do 
you think Amtrak's planned business actions, including actions that may 
be taken based on a market analysis, will enable Amtrak to make 
improvements in the bottom line and eliminate the approximately $60 
million deficit in fiscal year 2002?
    Answer. No. Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan shows net operating 
losses each year from 1998 to 2002, even with the implementation of 
planned business actions.
    Question. Would it cost the federal government less to provide a 
capital only grant to Amtrak?
    Answer. Yes. If Amtrak receives a capital only grant and is 
permitted to use the ``transit'' definition of capital, federal funds 
could be used to pay for maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. 
However, operating costs, such as payroll, which historically were 
funded through an operating subsidy grant and averaged over 50 percent 
of total expenses, could no longer be paid with federal funds.
    Question. Would the amounts proposed in the President's budget 
enable the corporation to become financially viable?
    Answer. According to its revised Strategic Business Plan, Amtrak 
will incur an operating cash loss of approximately $77 million at the 
end of fiscal year 2002. The independent assessment of Amtrak, as 
required by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, will 
provide Congress and Amtrak with detailed information on requirements 
for Amtrak to become financially viable.
                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF ROBERT KILEY, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK CITY 
            PARTNERSHIP

                       Introduction of Witnesses

    Senator Shelby. Our second panel will be: Mr. Robert Kiley, 
president of New York City Partnership; Robert Poole, president 
of the Reason Foundation. And they are going to speak on 
alternatives for passenger rail in America. Gentlemen--and Mr. 
Jeff Ladd, excuse me, chairman of the Metra Commuter Rail. Is 
Mr. Ladd here? Yes; he is here.
    Mr. Ladd. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. That is OK.
    Gentlemen, your written statements will be made part of the 
record in their entirety. You can proceed as you wish. Mr. 
Kiley, if you want to begin.
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Chairman, to repeat, my name is Robert 
Kiley. I am the president of the New York City Partnership, 
which is New York City's preeminent and business association.
    Senator Shelby. Do you want to bring the mike a little 
closer to you, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. Kiley. To repeat, my name is Bob Kiley. I am the 
president of the New York City Partnership, which is New York 
City's preeminent business and civic association. Our 
membership consists of the major New York City corporations and 
the heads of our major civic and cultural institutions.
    Maybe more to the point, my career has included a stint as 
chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in the 
Greater New York region. That included responsibility for the 
subway system, the Long Island commuter railroad, and the Metro 
North commuter railroad. Prior to that I served in a similar 
position in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 
which also included a contract relationship with Amtrak to 
operate its commuter service to both the north and the south of 
Boston. Finally, I served as a member of the Amtrak board from 
1993 to early 1996. So I am a veteran of the Northeast corridor 
and I feel as if I have grown long in the tooth along with 
Amtrak.
    But even more to the point, I served as a member of the 
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructures Working Group which was created last year to 
help along the legislative process which finally resulted in 
the Amtrak Reform Act of last fall, and I am here in that 
capacity, that is explaining what the recommendations were of 
that working group.
    But I might start out by saying that I am a little bit jet-
lagged since I got off an airplane last night from Italy, where 
I spent 10 wonderful days visiting our son, who is a student in 
Rome this semester. And I have to tell you, I have to report 
that I was a frequent user of the Fast Train in Italy. They 
operate six different kinds of services. You would be crazy to 
put yourself in the way of those wicked Italian automobile 
drivers and not take advantage of that wonderful train service.
    I am sure we all recall that it was said of Mussolini that 
he made the trains run on time in the 1930's. That was a 
statement born of frustration and irony here in the United 
States----
    Senator Shelby. It is what we remember him for, among other 
things.
    Mr. Kiley. Yes, true.
    But one of the reasons why that statement resonated in the 
United States was that we were already having trouble running 
our own passenger trains, and this problem that seems to 
bedevil us and the one that is preoccupying us today is not 
just 25 or 30 years old; it is 65 or 70 years old. The problem 
of how to manage and direct our national passenger rail set of 
assets is one that seems to have escaped and eluded us and 
bedeviled us for at least two generations.

                     Method for Capital Investment

    It is, I think, well to remember that Amtrak itself was 
created during a period when our entire railroad industry was 
in deep trouble in the United States, and Amtrak was one of two 
organizations, the other being Conrail, that was created to 
deal with the impending and then finally the bankruptcy of at 
least the eastern segment of that railroad industry.
    I do not think it was a deep dark secret that Amtrak, to 
put a somewhat cynical spin on it, was at the outset almost a 
dumping ground for the unprofitable segment of the rail 
industry, namely passenger operations. The story of Conrail you 
are all familiar with. After billions of dollars of taxpayers' 
investment in Conrail, it was finally taken private again in 
the mid-1980's and is now a considerable success story, whereas 
Amtrak unfortunately still remains a subject of great debate.
    I think it is fair to say that the Working Group that met 
last spring was really something of a takeoff on questions that 
all of you are asking today, but particularly Senators 
Lautenberg and Bennett. What seems to have been missing since 
the advent of Amtrak, and this is, I think, one of the major 
findings of the Working Group, is that when you get right down 
to it there seems to be an absence of real focused public 
policy in this area, real strategy.
    The fact that you can look at Amtrak, as the Government 
Accounting Organization has, and find that essentially over 30 
years or almost 30 years that its organizational profile, its 
revenue-to-cost ratios, labor costs, and overhead rates, its 
route structures, its market position, have essentially 
remained unchanged during this entire period of time--when 
Amtrak started there were 400 routes; back in the 1930's there 
were 6,000 routes; today there are 40 routes. But the essential 
nature of these routes have essentially not changed.
    So it is not an accident that out of these 40 routes, only 
one of them is in a position today to cover its own costs. This 
was really at the heart of the finding of the Working Group. 
Essentially, the Working Group reached the conclusion that 
until the Congress which has really become in effect the owner 
of Amtrak over the past 10 to 15 years, since most would argue 
that the executive branch has tended to take a walk on Amtrak, 
until the Congress takes a hard step backward, maybe even a 
harder step than it took last year, to look at what its 
ownership has wrought, we are likely to be back here at this 
table every year or two having this same discussion.
    The Working Group essentially concluded that a new 
organization which would focus on these issues--we called it 
Amrail--should be created, which would be the funnel, the 
energizing force, for Federal capital investment in our 
national rail system, should be created. It should focus on 
those densely populated corridors that both Senators Lautenberg 
and Bennett have discussed here today.
    It ought to begin the process, which has been much delayed, 
of seeing which corridors ought to take priority and starting 
that investment process. It was the feeling of the Working 
Group that this task should be separated from what Amtrak ought 
to be doing, which is running train operations, so that we can 
finally have a national rail strategy that would guide the 
expenditure of capital dollars.
    Amtrak over a period of time, over a period of several 
years, 2003 as a result of the Reform Act of last year, would 
in fact become a rail operator, but it would be one of 
potentially a number of rail operators. Amtrak would in effect 
become privatized over a period of time. There would have to be 
a transition here that would last as long as the operating 
subsidy anticipated in the Reform Act would last, that is until 
the year 2002 or 2003.
    In the meantime, Amrail would be overseeing the investment 
of these capital resources in lines that Amtrak now runs 
perhaps, particularly in the Northeast corridor, which is the 
exception that proves the rule that we ought to be investing in 
densely populated corridors, and Amtrak would be out of the 
capital investment picture and would be doing operations.
    Amrail would also be franchised to set standards for 
passenger operations across the country, most especially in 
these newly developed, densely populated corridors. And new 
operators would be welcome to operate trains in those 
corridors.

                      Passenger Rail Alternatives

    To answer Senator Gorton's question, there are actually 
companies out there right now who are anxious to run passenger 
rail operations, who would like to compete, and under the 
Reform Act they are going to get their first opportunity to 
compete. But they need opportunities. They need access to 
markets. And the current Amtrak route structure unfortunately 
does not penetrate into those markets where there are 
passengers to be found.
    I notice that the red light is on, Senator. There is much--
there is more that I could say about the Working Group's 
findings, but in essence we are arguing that there needs to be 
a new passenger rail, federally sponsored, public policy, it 
ought to be focused on densely populated corridors and it ought 
to happen during the life of the Reform Act. The Reform Act is 
a good start, but it is only a start.
    Mr. Chairman, the Working Group has prepared a report 
entitled ``A New Vision for America's Passenger Rail'' which we 
submit for the committee's consideration.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
               A New Vision for America's Passenger Rail

   (Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Working Group on 
                       Intercity Passenger Rail)

                              introduction
    For millions of Americans, passenger trains signify more than just 
a means of transportation; they serve as potent symbols of our nation's 
heritage, environmental consciousness and collective hopes for a humane 
future. Many passionately argue that the United States has the capacity 
and indeed, the obligation, to create a world-class national passenger 
rail system to endorse these values and to arrest the growing 
unintended side-effects of automobiles and airplanes in our cities and 
countryside.
    A more tangible and immediate argument for rail service can be 
weighed in straight financial terms. The United States is a diverse and 
increasingly mobile nation with a growing (as well as graying) 
population and an aging transportation infrastructure. It needs a well-
integrated national transportation policy that offers a range of modal 
choices in order to maximize mobility and to minimize transportation 
costs, infrastructure funding requirements and environmental damage in 
a variety of settings.
    Under the right conditions, passenger rail service can provide an 
attractive, financially sustainable transportation alternative that 
enhances efficiency of other modes (including cars, trucks, buses, 
airplanes and freight rail). Unfortunately, the conditions under which 
Amtrak currently operates do not allow for Amtrak to function as a true 
and equal alternative to other modes of transportation.
    Amtrak is now awash in red ink, buffeted by conflicting missions 
and ballooning debt, and virtually starved for capital in both 
political and financial terms. Not surprisingly, revenues, ridership 
and service have ebbed despite valiant efforts by both management and 
labor to reverse these trends. Neither the Congress nor the 
Administration seems eager to increase or even continue Amtrak's 
subsidy, though each institution still exerts sizable control over its 
organization, operations and route structure. This control is often at 
odds with Amtrak's ability to operate efficiently and to maximize the 
value of its assets. Meanwhile, competing modes of transportation fight 
ruthlessly for every uncommitted traveler in Amtrak's shrinking market 
share.
    Together these conditions create an untenable outlook for passenger 
rail in the United States. In the short range (the next 6 to 12 
months), Amtrak faces a major liquidity crisis and probable bankruptcy. 
Unless the Congress moves swiftly to reconfirm the value of passenger 
rail service and dramatically restructure the way in which it is 
organized and operated, the substantial asset base of the existing 
system will permanently disappear by default, along with many vital 
long-range prospects for service.
    A good measure of political and financial capital will be needed to 
avert this course; naturally, both elements are in short supply. 
Nevertheless, the U.S. government can claim a long and impressive 
tradition of large-scale problem solving, as in the creation of the 
interstate highway system and the notable improvement of the nation's 
air and water quality.
    Genuine renewal of national passenger rail service will not be 
resolved by political rhetoric nor by periodic last-minute infusions of 
cash; rather, it requires that the Congress take a long, hard step back 
from the status quo in order to plot a viable, market-driven course for 
the future. The immediate pain and risks to existing rail service and 
jobs that may accompany this overhaul must be gauged carefully against 
the larger and longer-range havoc that assuredly would follow the 
further decline and liquidation of Amtrak.
    More importantly, if passenger rail is to become a serious part of 
the nation's mobility strategy in the future--rather than a mere 
incantation of the past--it must operate in a profoundly more growth- 
and customer-oriented fashion. It must have the management tools, the 
flexibility, the incentives and the discipline imposed by competition 
to vie with other modes of transportation on a level playing field.
                                context
Fiscal
    Amtrak has been in financial difficulty for most of its 26-year 
existence. In recent years, its financial condition has deteriorated to 
the point that Amtrak believes it may exhaust all sources of cash 
within the next 12 months. To reduce its continually growing losses and 
widening gap between operating deficits and federal subsidies, Amtrak 
developed its Strategic Business Plan. Although Amtrak has made some 
progress in implementing its business plan and cutting its losses, its 
financial condition is still very precarious. Amtrak's financial 
measures continue to deteriorate. Financial targets have been missed, 
and substantial capital investment is needed.
    Amtrak has lost over $700 million in each of the last 9 years. 
Amtrak has been relying on passenger revenues to help close the gap 
between revenues and expenses, but passenger revenues, when adjusted 
for inflation, have declined over the past several years. Half way 
through the current fiscal year, Amtrak began borrowing against its 
short-term line of credit to meet basic operating expenses, such as 
payroll. From 1993 to 1996, Amtrak's debt and capital lease obligations 
nearly doubled--from about $500 million to almost $1 billion dollars. 
Amtrak expects to incur another $1 billion in debt within the next 2 
years to finance 18 train sets and related maintenance facilities for 
the Northeast Corridor and the acquisition of new locomotives. To 
service this increased debt, Amtrak must use a substantial portion of 
its federal operating subsidies that would otherwise be used to cover 
future operating deficits. Over the past 4 years, Amtrak's interest 
expenses have tripled from about $20 million to about $60 million.
    The costs of an Amtrak bankruptcy cannot be underestimated. These 
include financial, social, and political. Every constituency would 
lose: state, local, and federal government, employees, customers, 
suppliers, taxpayers. The true cost of a bankruptcy would be billions 
of dollars. The resolution of such a bankruptcy is far from certain, as 
control of the process would be taken out of the hands of the 
government.
Support
    After investing over $19 billion in Amtrak since 1971, Congress is 
losing patience with Amtrak's continued dependence on federal 
subsidies. Congress has promised to provide legislative reforms (labor, 
liability) and continued capital support in return for Amtrak's pledge 
to eliminate its need for federal operating subsidies by 2002. Amtrak 
has asked for a dedicated funding source for its capital needs, and 
there have been several bills introduced to accomplish this, but the 
outcome is uncertain.
    While the Administration has stated its commitment to Amtrak's 
future, it has proposed a level of funding below Amtrak's stated needs 
to be provided from the Highway Trust Fund in its NEXTEA legislative 
proposal. The Administration's proposal would force Amtrak to compete 
with other surface transportation programs for the limited funding 
allowed by the budget from the Trust Fund. The Administration also 
supports the elimination of all federal operating subsidies for Amtrak 
by 2002. The current Congressional budget resolution makes additional 
resources for a possible inter-city rail trust fund contingent upon 
enactment of reform legislation.
    The public's support for Amtrak is segmented among the geographic 
areas of the country. Its greatest support is in the Northeast, where 
Amtrak serves a substantial portion of the business travel between New 
York and Washington. In contrast, Amtrak's routes in other parts of the 
country are sparsely traveled. Amtrak's support among select user 
groups (retirees, leisure travelers), is higher than its support from 
the general population. Yet Amtrak's load factor (the percentage of 
seats filled) for fiscal year 1996 was 43.3 percent on a system-wide 
basis, and ranged from 37.4 percent to 47.3 percent among its strategic 
business units. By comparison, a load factor around 60 percent is 
generally considered the break-even point for airlines.
Access to Freight Railroads' Facilities
    Currently, Amtrak operates over the freight railroads' right-of-way 
for all routes except the Northeast Corridor, which Amtrak owns, and 
small route segments in New York State, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, 
also owned by Amtrak. Amtrak owned rights-of-way comprise less than 5 
percent of the company's current route system. Amtrak's access rights, 
in combination with its own right-of-way, form the nation's current 
intercity rail system, and therefore, these rights must be viewed as 
one of the most valuable of all of Amtrak's assets.
    The freight railroads view the terms and conditions that govern 
Amtrak's access as entirely to their detriment, while Amtrak views its 
access rights as part of its compensation for having relieved the 
freight railroads of the obligation to provide passenger rail service. 
These viewpoints represent polar extremes and there needs to be 
satisfactory balance between the two positions.
    There are three elements to the freight railroad/Amtrak 
relationship:
  --Access.--Amtrak has compulsory access to the freight railroads' 
        right-of-way by virtue of a federal statute. In addition, by 
        federal law, Amtrak must be given priority dispatching over 
        freight trains.
  --Compensation.--Amtrak's payments to the freight railroads for its 
        use of their right-of-way is specified by formula in federal 
        statute according to incremental costs. The freight railroads 
        claim that this formula forces them to subsidize Amtrak 
        service.
  --Liability.--Current law and judicial interpretation of access 
        agreements gives the freight railroads no protection against 
        unlimited tort liability that comes with the presence of 
        passenger trains on their tracks.
    An additional element that exacerbates the freight/Amtrak 
relationship is the recent increase in freight traffic, which makes 
each train movement more valuable as capacity becomes constrained. The 
freight railroads claim that the incremental cost formula, in addition 
to not adequately covering the costs that Amtrak itself imposes, does 
not even address the opportunity cost of reduced freight movements due 
to Amtrak's presence. The freight railroads are very sensitive to new 
lines of business that Amtrak has proposed to undertake, such as 
hauling increased mail and express freight commodities that may 
encroach on their own business.
    The Amtrak/freight relationship can be contrasted with the current 
system by which commuter authorities obtain access to freight railroad 
rights-of-way. Commuter railroads negotiate with the freight railroads 
at arms' length on a case-by-case basis with no federal statute 
compelling mandatory access. Compensation levels are established by 
mutual agreement. And in most cases, state law limits tort liability 
that can arise from a commuter rail accident.
    A major task in designing a new format for intercity passenger rail 
will be to determine at what point in between the two options, i.e., 
the current Amtrak/freight relationship, and the freight/commuter 
relationship, a balance can be achieved that is fair and adequately 
provides for continued access by Amtrak and other potential intercity 
passenger rail operators.
Services and Values
    A renewed National Passenger Rail System (as one or more entities) 
should do two important things (in order of priority):
    (1) Provide safe, reliable, comfortable convenient and financially-
sound passenger rail service in all densely populated corridors of the 
United States that show declining air quality and presently or 
potentially intractable traffic congestion problems; and,
    (2) Encourage public/private development of attractive overnight 
passenger rail service, on a periodic basis throughout regions of the 
nation with significant cultural, historical and scenic character 
(e.g., a kind of ``rolling national park'') or where such service is 
justified on an economic basis.
    The working group believes that a renewed passenger rail system 
should provide the maximum benefit to its customers and achieve 
operational excellence and efficiency. In addition, the system should 
be subjected to market discipline and financial accountability. 
Environmental protection and improvement, as well as national historic 
and cultural preservation should also be goals of a new passenger rail 
system.
                         restructuring proposal
    The working group believes that Intercity Passenger Rail is a major 
United States asset which is, for specific roles, superior to or 
complementary to competing modes. It should be supported and expanded. 
This, however, requires a commitment to broadened, secure investment in 
the basic infrastructure to permit competitive speeds and reliable 
operation in the major corridors of the country.
    This infrastructure investment for passenger rail should properly 
be the responsibility of the Federal Government, as it is for the 
highways, ports, airports, and traffic control systems of the other 
modes. However, Amtrak is an anomaly. Competing modes do not own their 
infrastructure. Bus lines and autos use public highways, airlines use 
public airports, cruise ships use public waterway improvements. Thus, 
competing modes infrastructure needs are funded through long-
established entities, e.g. FAA, FTA, the Corps of Engineers, etc. No 
such vehicle exists for the funding of passenger rail infrastructure. 
The working group recognizes that currently all major publicly owned 
rail infrastructure is in the Northeast Corridor, but it believes that 
there can be efficient use of Federal capital in rail for short and 
medium distance trips in several areas of the country.
    While the working group believes that the costs of infrastructure 
investment and maintenance are properly the province of the Federal 
Government, it also believes that the operating costs of intercity rail 
travel should be met by its beneficiaries, particularly users and state 
and local governments and authorities. Again, this generally parallels 
competitive modes who are generally responsible for their operating 
costs. The working group also notes that typically several operators 
compete by using common public ports, highways, and airports, and this 
principle should be applicable to rail. Thus, opportunities for 
possible access by competitive operators in intercity passenger rail 
should be enhanced.
    The working group believes that the separation of infrastructure 
ownership and management from passenger transportation responsibility 
is fundamental, and that it should be reflected in a basic division of 
governance. The separation of the infrastructure function from the 
passenger transportation function serves several purposes:
  --It provides a clear demarcation between the ultimate federal 
        infrastructure capital responsibility and the operating 
        responsibility funded by beneficiaries. Accountability will 
        therefore be made much clearer.
  --It provides a mechanism whereby the merits of funding new rail 
        corridor development can be assessed separately from criticism 
        of the performance of the operator.
  --It provides a mechanism to introduce new operators competitive to 
        or comparative to Amtrak.
  --It will enable Amtrak to focus its efforts on its principal day-to-
        day responsibility--providing and developing superior, 
        efficient service to its users, not seeking support for its 
        infrastructure capital program.
    Amtrak's current responsibility for infrastructure planning, 
construction, and maintenance should therefore be separated from the 
responsibility of operating passenger service. Thus, a new federally 
owned corporation with its own governance would take responsibility for 
managing the track, signals, and other fixed infrastructure of the 
Northeast Corridor, along with capital investment in those new 
corridors that are envisioned for the future, while Amtrak would 
continue its passenger services operating role.
    Initially Amtrak would be the only operator of intercity passenger 
transportation, but to encourage innovation and to match service to 
local interests, it would further decentralize by adding strategic 
business units in the Midwest and elsewhere. The working group also 
believes that the potential of intercity passenger rail will be 
improved if subject to competition from other modes and from other 
actual or potential providers of intercity passenger rail service and 
furthermore from a new focus on passenger service provision, as 
distinct from infrastructure management. Thus, eventually, provision 
would be made for other operators to compete with Amtrak on particular 
routes or in particular regions.
    Establishing this newly structured passenger rail service 
environment will not be an instantaneous process, and therefore 
attention will need to be paid during the transitional period to 
ensuring a reasonable balance of benefits among various stakeholders in 
rail passenger service and among various regions of the country. 
Legislation to implement this proposal would provide that the 
infrastructure currently owned by Amtrak would be transferred to the 
new infrastructure management entity.
    The new infrastructure management entity would:
  --Determine infrastructure capital needs;
  --Request and expend Federal funding for passenger rail 
        infrastructure;
  --Oversee rail operations on and manage its infrastructure; and
  --Establish standards for selection of passenger rail operators.
    In the long run, after standards for new passenger service 
operators are established, the infrastructure entity would establish 
competitive procedures for selecting passenger service operators and 
conduct competitions for the right to provide service. These procedures 
would provide for reasonable protection for employees adversely 
affected by the competition. We want to emphasize, however, that a 
properly structured reform of inter-city rail passenger service and the 
related infrastructure responsibilities offers real potential for 
stable, secure employment. The proposal is assumed to increase 
passenger rail jobs with the expansion of rail service in appropriate 
markets. Most of Amtrak's employees would continue to work under 
existing labor contracts. Some Amtrak employees, who currently work on 
infrastructure maintenance, would work for the new infrastructure 
entity, Amrail.
                                funding
    The working group assumes that there are essentially three 
alternatives: (1) no funding; (2) funding (with some minimal level of 
conditionality attached); and (3) bridge, or conditional funding. 
Clearly variations are possible, but all would include principal 
elements of one of these three alternatives.
    The group has also assumed that the national passenger rail service 
contemplated is one where infrastructure management and development and 
passenger transportation services are non-overlapping and divided into 
two different operating entities.
    The working group is also of the belief that fixed infrastructure 
capital funding and operating funding requirements must be viewed as 
distinct from one another. Additionally, both types of funding need to 
be more directed toward existing and potential routes with the greatest 
demand and market potential, which are primarily the higher density 
inter-city corridors.
    Fixed infrastructure capital funding amounts required would be 
determined by the new infrastructure manager and developer. The new 
entity would in turn request and expend federal funding for passenger 
rail infrastructure. Over the short term, the amount of such funding 
needs to be absolutely no less than called for in the Amtrak strategic 
plan. Longer term, these amounts must be increased significantly and 
placed in a more secure manner.
    Operating funding requirements arise at the transportation service 
provider level, and in the group's view should be minimized through 
strict oversight and market discipline. Start-up operating funding 
requirements should be factored into the initial years of the 
operation, possibly for 5 years.
    The group has identified two types of funding requirements: short 
term, or bridge funding, and longer term funding. These are discussed 
further below.
Alternative 1: No Funding (``Bankruptcy'')
    Based on statements made by both Amtrak senior management as well 
as several government transportation officials in the past six months, 
it appears irrefutable that (i) Amtrak is not financially self-
sustainable, and; (ii) Amtrak has borrowings and other financial 
payment obligations that place it in real danger of bankruptcy if these 
obligations are not met.
    The costs of an Amtrak bankruptcy cannot be underestimated. These 
include financial, social, and political. Every constituency would 
lose: state, local and federal government, employees, customers, 
suppliers, taxpayers. The true cost of a bankruptcy would cost billions 
of dollars. The resolution of such a bankruptcy is far from certain, as 
control of the process would be taken out of the hands of the 
government.
    Although frequently used as a tool to precipitate wholesale 
corporate reorganization, bankruptcy for Amtrak would most likely ensue 
in chaos. This outcome should be seen as most undesirable.
Alternative 2: Funding (assumes encouragement of existing management to 
        get on with their plan)
    Amtrak has cost U.S. taxpayers almost $1 billion per year since its 
inception twenty six years ago. Funding has been irregular, and its 
operating plan impaired, resulting in yearly underfunding by Congress, 
and declining levels of corporate performance including bigger 
operating losses, fewer passengers, fewer routes, and poorer service. 
Monies marked for capital improvements have been spent on covering debt 
service, resulting in a chronic underinvestment for the future.
    Many reforms were launched by the company in the 1993-94 period, 
aiming at reversing this decline. Broadly speaking, these have not paid 
off. Today, Amtrak finds itself once again cap in hand asking for money 
that it claims will support the achievement of a self-sufficiency plan 
that is generally acknowledged by many outside Amtrak as wholly 
unrealistic. Specifically, many if not most of the tenets of this plan 
(on which the funding request is predicated), include sources of 
revenue which are unproven on a broad scale (e.g. high-speed trains, 
express delivery, freight carriage). Management is fighting with, or 
staving off, creditors, freight carriers, Congress, and labor, to name 
a few. Credibility is beyond repair without a real fresh start.
    The Clinton Administration, and many within Congress, have put 
proposals forward to fund a portion of Amtrak's needs, but none would 
come close to solving Amtrak's problems. By Amtrak's own admission, 
this approach will merely postpone a true crisis. A true crisis would 
be akin to bankruptcy, with many of the attendant costs. In fact, 
Amtrak management has gone on the record stating that even if all of 
its request for funds was met, Amtrak would still be in an extremely 
precarious position.
    It would seem logical to conclude from this that simply funding 
Amtrak when it is running with a poorly articulated plan and little 
hope of success would seem to be irrational, a true waste of taxpayers' 
money and in fact only serve to defer and potentially exacerbate the 
problems.
Alternative 3: Conditional Funding
    The notion of conditional funding incorporates two concepts. 
Firstly, that bankruptcy must be avoided (i.e., funding must be made 
available) and secondly that such funding as is granted must be done 
within the context of the implementation of one or a set of mechanisms/
reforms designed to improve the performance of Amtrak for its owner, 
users, and employees.
    Such funding naturally breaks down in two parts: (i) short term 
funding to avert the immediate crisis and allow the reforms to be 
implemented; and (ii) longer term funding that allows for the 
flourishing of the model that is implemented. It is our belief that 
alternative sources of funding will become accessible as a direct 
result of a credible reform process being implemented. Some of these 
are discussed further below.
How much money, for how long and from where?
    Under (i) above, short term funding should be provided in an amount 
that lies between the current funding request of Amtrak and the 
Administration's proposal. This funding should be made to be as short 
term as possible to encourage urgency in implementing reform. A term of 
12 to 18 months is seen as realistic. In other words, fund Amtrak 
exactly as much as it needs to avoid bankruptcy during the 
implementation of reforms over a specific and defined time period. This 
funding must be sourced from the readiest sources of cash, i.e., the 
normal Amtrak appropriation.
    Regarding (ii) above, the amount required on a regular basis will 
depend on the plan adopted. Sources will vary depending on the use of 
funds, but the implementation of various reforms will certainly impact 
the funding sources available, as discussed further below. This funding 
should be regular and predictable, for greatest ease for both the 
recipient as well as the donor. It should be subject to periodic 
review, or certain performance or other events should trigger such a 
review.
    In light of current budgetary constraints, and yet the clear need 
to provide a regular, predictable, and stable infusion of capital 
investment in inter-city passenger rail infrastructure, Congress should 
consider creative and innovative procedures for infrastructure 
assistance. Merely renewing calls for ``dedicated'' funding sources 
without exploring new and more adaptable funding mechanisms is unlikely 
to produce constructive results. In the past, many such proposals for 
``dedicated'' funding have foundered on the philosophical objection of 
states with little or no inter-city passenger rail service to making 
forced tax contributions to states with substantial amounts of such 
service.
    We have not attempted to select a single funding mechanism to 
recommend to the Congress. We are agreed that stability is an essential 
element of such funding, and that greater creativity needs to be 
exercised in selecting potential funding mechanisms. As part of our 
deliberations, we did discuss two examples of innovative funding 
mechanisms. Although we are not recommending these specific approaches, 
they are offered here as purely illustrative examples of the general 
type of non-traditional mechanisms we recommend the Congress examine.
    First, one potential technique for addressing the perennial issue 
of fairness among ``rail'' and ``non-rail'' states might be to 
authorize at the federal level a state-option portion of the federal 
gasoline tax. This would permit states who wished--either alone or in 
concert with other participants in multi-state compacts--to participate 
directly in passenger rail capital funding to opt for some additional 
increment of gasoline tax to be used for this purpose.
    Another example would be to expand and modernize the guaranteed 
loan programs of the 1976 Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform 
(``4R'') Act. These programs are already targeted toward rail 
infrastructure needs. Under current law, the ``subsidy component'' or 
``risk premium'' supporting such guaranteed loans may be funded only 
through on-budget federal appropriations. If these functional 
equivalents of security deposits could be provided by outside entities 
(such as state governments or private parties), substantial amounts of 
infrastructure capital might be made available with minimal budgetary 
impact.
                               conclusion
    A majority of the working group is of the view that a division 
between infrastructure management and operations affords the best 
chance for the preservation and renewal of passenger rail service in 
this country. Amtrak has operated for too long under conditions that no 
business could endure. The problems do not lie with Amtrak management 
or Amtrak labor, but rather with the basic structure that was 
established when Amtrak was created in 1971. Amtrak's mission is 
vaguely defined, its funding has never been adequate for a true 
national system and it has been burdened with expensive legal mandates.
    The majority believes that intercity rail should be placed on the 
same structural footing as other modes of transportation. This would 
include a stable and permanent commitment by the Federal Government to 
fund the infrastructure costs of intercity passenger rail. It would 
also mean the elimination of operating subsidies for operators of 
passenger rail, and the introduction of competition among these 
operators.
                                 ______
                                 
                           Minority Comments

                    (James Florio and Carl Van Horn)

    The majority of the Working Group on Intercity Rail sets the right 
note at the outset of their report by emphasizing the important role 
that intercity passenger rail plays in reducing airport and highway 
congestion and improving air quality, and urges the preservation and 
enhancement of intercity passenger rail service in order to achieve 
these objectives. The report also advances the admirable goal of 
increasing the Nation's investment in intercity passenger rail 
infrastructure, especially in densely travelled corridors where high-
speed rail service is a realistic alternative. The report proposes to 
achieve these goals by separating ownership of passenger rail 
infrastructure from responsibility for passenger rail operations. We 
have examined this proposal carefully, however, and have concluded that 
it is unlikely to solve the existing problems of intercity passenger 
rail service in the United States. In fact, we believe that, if 
adopted, it would create difficult new problems.
    The majority report establishes two goals for reforming and 
restructuring Amtrak:
    (1) Provide safe, reliable, comfortable, convenient, and 
financially sound passenger rail service in all densely populated 
corridors of the United States that show declining air quality and 
presently or potentially traffic congestion problems; and
    (2) Encourage public/private development of attractive overnight 
passenger rail service, on a periodic basis, throughout regions of the 
nation with significant cultural, historical, and scenic character 
(e.g., a kind of ``rolling national park'').
    We believe the proposals advanced by the majority report fail to 
achieve either goal. We believe that, if implemented, they are likely 
to reduce investment in passenger rail infrastructure and reduce 
service on most interstate routes, whether those routes are on high-
density corridors or in regions of the country with significant 
cultural, historical, and scenic character.
    We believe that our colleagues come at their proposal largely due 
to an unwarranted pessimism about Amtrak's prospects. They are unduly 
critical of Amtrak's management, unduly critical of Amtrak's Strategic 
Business Plan, and unduly critical of the market potential for Amtrak's 
services. The majority report is also unnecessarily pessimistic about 
Congressional support for Amtrak. Senator Roth has recently introduced 
legislation to create a $2 billion reserve fund for Amtrak that has 
attracted broad support in the Senate. While the majority report claims 
that there is ``very little support for the long-distance routes,'' 
that is contradicted by the fact that the Senate added a special 
provision in last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act adding $22.5 
million to Amtrak's appropriation to save four long-distance routes. 
Senator Lott has become a leading supporter of Amtrak, primarily 
because of his support for a long-distance route passing through the 
State of Mississippi.
There is No Compelling Rationale for Restructuring
    The proponents of restructuring Amtrak have not put forth any 
compelling rationale for changing the current structure. The majority 
report cites four purposes that are served by their restructuring 
proposal; on closer examination, none of the four purposes is actually 
achieved.
    First, the majority report suggests that the proposal would enhance 
accountability by providing ``a clear demarcation between the ultimate 
infrastructure capital responsibility and the operating responsibility 
funded by beneficiaries.'' Yet the way in which the infrastructure 
entity is established would muddy this responsibility, because the 
infrastructure entity would be responsible not only for managing the 
infrastructure, but also for establishing standards for selecting 
operating companies. The ``infrastructure'' entity would thus be 
setting service standards for operations and be involved both as a 
supplier to the operating companies (by selling them access to the 
infrastructure) and as a regulator of those companies (by selecting who 
can use the infrastructure and what service standards they must meet). 
In any case, separating the infrastructure and operations roles is 
unlikely to enhance accountability. When problems develop, the 
operating companies are likely to blame the infrastructure company for 
failing to maintain the infrastructure properly, while the 
infrastructure company is likely to blame the operating companies. When 
both infrastructure and operations are the responsibility of the same 
company, accountability is clear and undivided. There is no one else to 
blame.
    Second, our colleagues suggest that separating ownership of the 
rails from operations will create greater infrastructure investment 
from the public and private sector. They argue that having an entity 
whose sole responsibility is infrastructure will encourage Congress to 
invest more in high-speed rail infrastructure in appropriate high-
density corridors around the country without being distracted by 
arguments about the performance of the rail service operator (Amtrak).
    In our view, the impediment to high-speed rail has been constraints 
on the federal budget resulting in budget caps on all infrastructure 
investment, not structural problems with Amtrak. In 1994, the Congress 
declined to approve the Clinton Administration's request to finance 
high-speed rail development, despite the fact that these funds would 
have been spent independently of Amtrak. Since 1991, the Congress has 
declined to appropriate any of the $725 million authorized for maglev 
development by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 
none of which would have been managed by Amtrak. This year, Congress is 
considering a request for $300 million for development of the high-
speed rail project in Florida, which would be managed independently of 
Amtrak; however, thus far the Florida congressional delegation has not 
strongly supported the request.
    Third, our colleagues suggest that separating infrastructure 
management from operations will facilitate the introduction of new 
competitors to Amtrak. For virtually all of the Amtrak system, 
ownership of the infrastructure is already separate, in the hands of 
the freight railroads, so there are already opportunities for 
competition over the rails that Amtrak does not own. In any case, it is 
not clear why new competitors are needed, since there is plenty of 
competition already from other modes of transportation. As the majority 
report itself states in its Introduction, ``. . . competing modes of 
transportation fight ruthlessly for every uncommitted traveler'' who 
rides on Amtrak.
    Fourth, the majority report also argues that separating 
infrastructure from operations will benefit Amtrak by eliminating the 
need for Amtrak to seek support for its infrastructure capital program. 
We believe this argument is exceedingly naive. Amtrak's success will 
still depend critically on the amount appropriated for the 
infrastructure program, so Amtrak will still need to expend resources 
lobbying for appropriations for it, just as trucking companies lobby 
for highway expenditures and airlines lobby for airport investments.
    There are, perhaps, other reasons for advancing this restructuring 
proposal. Several members of the working group have cited, with 
approval, the recent British approach that separated infrastructure 
maintenance from operations. But the British model is not one to be 
emulated. Thus far, the British model has cost nearly $1 billion a year 
more in public funding than it did under its predecessor, BritRail. If 
the British model were applied to the U.S. it would in all likelihood 
lead either to substantially increased subsidy levels or to the 
elimination of all long distance trains as well as the elimination of 
many short-haul trains that require regional or multi-state support. 
The best one can say at this point is that the jury is still out on the 
British experiment.
    Another rationale for the proposal is that other modes of 
transportation operate privately-owned and operated vehicles on 
publicly-owned infrastructure. This is not uniformly true--mass transit 
receives federal subsidies both for its rolling stock and for its 
operating costs. But the proposal to separate ownership of 
infrastructure from operation of trains might be more appealing in an 
environment where the entire national rail infrastructure is owned by a 
single entity, and where several passenger rail operators compete on 
that infrastructure. Neither of those conditions obtains in the United 
States. Most rail infrastructure is owned by freight railroads, and the 
existence of competing passenger rail operators is only a distant 
potential. Our colleagues acknowledge those facts, but think that 
separation of infrastructure from operation will help to move us toward 
an environment where more infrastructure is publicly-owned and more 
operators compete on that infrastructure. For reasons which we shall 
discuss in more detail below, however, we think the proposal is 
unlikely to increase the extent of publicly owned infrastructure. We 
also think that the elimination of federal operating subsidy is likely 
to discourage most new private passenger rail operators from entering 
the market.
There are Serious Negative Effects of Restructuring
    We believe that our colleagues's restructuring proposal not only 
lacks a clear rationale; it also is likely to have serious adverse 
effects on infrastructure investment and passenger rail service. We 
think it is likely both to reduce the level of infrastructure 
investment for passenger rail and, by reducing operating subsidies, 
dramatically curtail the level of interstate passenger rail service.
    While the restructuring proposal is advanced with the intent of 
increasing infrastructure investment, the likelihood of Congress 
approving additional infrastructure funding under this proposal is 
undermined by the unequal distribution of infrastructure spending among 
the states. Virtually all of Amtrak's infrastructure spending is now 
done within the eight states of the Northeast Corridor. Other states 
are willing to support these expenditures because they receive a 
disproportionate share of the operating subsidies to keep trains 
running in their states. If federal operating subsidies were 
eliminated, as the proposal envisions, the other states would have 
little reason to support infrastructure investment in the Northeast 
Corridor, and might cease such expenditures altogether. This could lead 
to the collapse of the high-speed rail project in the Northeast 
Corridor and the gradual erosion of conventional Northeast Corridor 
service as the infrastructure deteriorates.
    Even if a handful of high-speed rail infrastructure projects were 
supported outside of the Northeast Corridor, this would still not 
produce enough support to keep the program going. While the proposal is 
advanced on the assumption of an increase in passenger rail 
infrastructure funding, it may thus result in a decrease in 
infrastructure funding.
    The restructuring proposal's assumptions about operating subsidies 
would also have a seriously negative effect on the support for 
interstate passenger rail service, and would probably lead to most of 
that service being canceled. The proposal suggests that the new 
operating entity would receive no federal operating subsidy, would be 
required to pay for its own rolling stock, and would have to depend on 
voluntary payments from the states for any public operating subsidy it 
received. We think this proposal would make most long-distance trains 
and many short-haul trains that require regional or multi-state support 
unsupportable.
    Amtrak believes that it can cover its operating costs, but only if 
the costs of acquiring rolling stock are treated as a capital cost to 
be paid for by public subsidy. No one who has studied Amtrak's cost 
structure believes that it can break even if it has to cover the costs 
of its rolling stock. If Amtrak cannot cover its costs, it must either 
cut routes or go to the states for operating subsidy. (If Amtrak cuts 
routes, this further undermines national support for federal 
infrastructure funding.)
    We think Amtrak is unlikely to be able to generate substantial 
operating subsidies from the states. Amtrak's inability to obtain 
sufficient state support thus far is instructive. While state support 
for Amtrak has increased, it is still only $70 million in 1997 and the 
states continue to struggle over providing modest amounts of money. 
More than half of the state support comes from a single state--
California. Two-thirds comes from two states (California and Illinois). 
All of it comes from 14 states. The States of Louisiana, Mississippi, 
and Alabama could not agree on how to divide up the $2 million cost of 
the Gulf Coast Limited, so none of them contributed anything, and the 
route was terminated, even though this is the sort of short haul 
service (from Mobile, Ala., to New Orleans, La.) that states should 
find attractive. The State of Massachusetts would not contribute even 
$100,000 to support the Vermonter even though it serves the western 
part of the state. Vermont had to pay the full share (but in the 
absence of federal subsidies, the route would have been canceled, 
because Vermont only had to pay for the extension of service north from 
Springfield, Mass.). The proposal will likely lead to the elimination 
of most interstate routes outside of the Northeast Corridor; the few 
remaining routes are likely to be the relatively small number that fall 
entirely within one state, such as those in California.
    Our colleagues assert that separation of infrastructure ownership 
from operations would enhance the efficient use of the infrastructure, 
but the experience of Amtrak and the freight railroads points to the 
opposite conclusion. Freight railroads defend their right to operate on 
their own privately owned rights-of-way because they believe strongly 
that the ownership of the right-of-way allows them to offer a more 
efficient and customer-oriented service than would be the case if they 
were tenants on a right-of-way owned by someone else. Clearly, one of 
Amtrak's problems over the years has been that it does not own most of 
its rights-of-way. Delays in Amtrak service are often due to operations 
of freight railroads. It is no accident that Amtrak has succeeded on 
the one right-of-way that it owns--the Northeast Corridor. We see no 
reason to endanger this success by separating ownership of the right-
of-way from operation of the trains.
    The restructuring proposal also suggests weakening what the report 
itself describes as ``one of the most valuable of all of Amtrak's 
assets.'' Amtrak has guaranteed access to the Nation's freight railway 
system, and it is these rights of access that the ``Context'' section 
of the report describes as one of the ``most valuable'' assets cited 
above. Yet in the ``Question-and-Answer'' section of the report, these 
rights are put up for negotiation. ``The panel believes that Congress 
should explore new alternatives that would fall between the current 
Amtrak arrangements [i.e., guaranteed access] and the present framework 
for commuter rail access [i.e., no guaranteed access] to freight rail 
infrastructure.'' We cannot see how giving away these critical access 
rights advances the cause of passenger rail transportation in the 
United States.
The Restructuring Proposal is Based on Erroneous Factual Statements
    The analysis in the majority report is based in part on a number of 
unsupported factual assertions, some of which are contradicted by its 
own findings. The majority report alleges, without foundation, that 
``Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan is generally acknowledged by many 
outside of Amtrak as wholly unrealistic.'' In fact, the outside parties 
that count, namely the bankers that are lending Amtrak money, do 
believe the plan is realistic, and that is why they are lending the $1 
billion that Amtrak is borrowing for its Northeast Corridor high-speed 
rail service.
    The majority report takes note of the reforms that Amtrak has 
instituted in the past three years and asserts, again without offering 
any evidence, ``Broadly speaking, these [reforms] have not paid off.'' 
This does not appear to be the view of the states who work with Amtrak. 
The State of Wisconsin, for example, has written to the Working Group 
saying that ``In recent years, Amtrak has taken more aggressive actions 
to improve the service, increase advertising, and increase ridership. 
These changes are reflective of the new attitude that is manifesting 
itself in Amtrak. Everyone at the company recognizes that they must 
please their customers if they are to continue as a company. They are 
working hard to do so.'' The letter also notes that ridership has 
doubled since the State contracted with Amtrak for passenger service. 
While ridership has declined nationally because Amtrak has been forced 
to eliminate routes due to federal budget cuts, traffic is generally 
growing on those routes that have been retained. Similarly, the State 
of Illinois has written to the Working Group stating that ``Amtrak has 
shown the flexibility and will to make significant and tangible strides 
toward self-sufficiency and good business practices. We thus have 
reason to be hopeful for the future.''
The Majority Report Proposes Confusing Information About Rail Labor 
        Issues
    The majority report for the most part ignores the controversial 
issue of labor protection and accident liability, because there was 
little consensus on these issues among the Working Group, and 
information had been presented to the Group indicating that these 
issues had inconsequential effects on Amtrak's financial status. 
Indeed, the majority report states in its conclusions that ``The 
problems do not lie with Amtrak management or Amtrak labor . . . .'' 
Yet, the report does not address what will happen to employees under 
the restructured system. Freight railroads operate under essentially 
the same labor protection provisions as Amtrak, and they find it 
possible to succeed in a competitive business. The fact is that 
Amtrak's recent experience in eliminating routes has shown that labor 
protection in practice has inconsequential costs. Amtrak does not use 
the flexibility it has now to contract out work and has never been able 
to show that it would actually save money if it had more flexibility. 
We believe that these labor provisions have little if any effect on 
Amtrak's financial status and should not be part of any Amtrak reform 
proposals. But more importantly, we believe that any proposal to 
restructure Amtrak should specifically address the future status of 
Amtrak's employees.
There Are Better Ways to Preserve and Enhance Intercity Passenger Rail 
        Service in the United States
    Congress has repeatedly urged Amtrak to make better use of its 
infrastructure and to reduce costs and lessen its dependence on 
operating support. Instead of embarking on an the uncertain path of 
restructuring, we believe that Amtrak should be given the next two to 
three years to implement several promising revenue-enhancing activities 
that could significantly improve its financial situation. These 
initiatives include high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor, 
increased mail and express, and development of electric power 
initiatives, among others.
    We believe that Amtrak's management has done a credible job of 
making Amtrak more efficient and more customer-focused. We believe that 
Amtrak has correctly seen that it must invest in new rolling stock to 
replace obsolete equipment that is unreliable and expensive to 
maintain. We believe that the Congress should support Amtrak's effort 
to reduce its costs and expand its market by providing it with the 
capital and operating support it needs and by eliminating statutory 
restrictions on Amtrak's operations.
    First, Amtrak needs more capital support so that it does not have 
to borrow money on the private market at high interest rates. Clearly 
it makes more sense for Amtrak's capital costs to be financed at low 
government interest rates than at high private interest rates. In 
particular, Amtrak needs capital support to pay for and promptly begin 
service with its new high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor. 
While it is possible to dispute the exact estimates of the surplus that 
will be generated by this service, there is no doubt that this is a 
worthwhile investment for Amtrak and for the Nation.
    Second, Amtrak needs sufficient operating subsidy so that it does 
not have to borrow short-term to meet its operating costs. Amtrak has 
reduced its operating costs by over $200 million since 1994. It is 
making good progress toward minimizing its need for operating subsidy. 
Reducing Amtrak's operating subsidy in the short run simply forces 
Amtrak to borrow more, thus increasing its need for operating subsidy 
in the long run. A predictable, realistic glidepath to lower operating 
subsidy is the most sensible policy.
    Third, Amtrak needs some basic revisions in its statutory 
authorization to clarify its authority and allow it to reduce its costs 
and increase its revenues. Amtrak currently is authorized to carry 
``mail and express'' in addition to passengers, but ``express'' is 
never defined in the statute. Instead, ``express'' is defined by a long 
series of Interstate Commerce Commission decisions. The definition is 
obscure and subject to prolonged litigation. The freight railroads have 
opposed Amtrak's recent attempts to expand its express business and 
have threatened litigation to prevent Amtrak from increasing its 
revenues in this way. The freight railroads say they only want Amtrak 
to carry what is traditionally considered express--things like United 
Parcel Service (UPS) packages. But the freight railroads already carry 
a considerable amount of UPS packages by carrying UPS trailers on their 
flatcars. It would not make sense for the freight railroads for Amtrak 
to expand its business in an area that is already being served by the 
freight railroads.
    Amtrak has proposed carrying cargoes like refrigerated perishables 
and other intermodal traffic requiring very tight delivery times. The 
railroads have opposed letting Amtrak carry this cargo because it is 
``freight,'' not ``express.'' But the important point is whether the 
railroads have any realistic likelihood of carrying the cargo in 
question. If the freight railroads cannot meet the delivery schedules 
demanded by shippers, then they are not harmed by having Amtrak carry 
the cargo, regardless of whether it is ``freight'' or ``express.'' We 
therefore recommend that the definition of ``express'' that Amtrak is 
authorized to carry be defined in statute as any cargo that existing 
freight railroads do not carry because they cannot routinely meet the 
delivery schedules or other criteria demanded by shippers.
    Amtrak uses prodigious amounts of electrical power on the Northeast 
Corridor. The commuter railroads who use Amtrak's right-of-way use even 
more. Electrical power costs in the northeast are among the highest in 
the country. If Amtrak could buy power from distant suppliers who can 
generate power at lower costs, it could dramatically reduce its costs 
of service. Amtrak should further be permitted to make more efficient 
use of the natural distribution system created by its Northeast 
Corridor electrical grid to sell power to other users along its right-
of-way. If Amtrak is to make more efficient use of its infrastructure, 
it needs to have the authority to use its infrastructure to reduce its 
costs and generate revenues.
Summary
    In summary, despite the unanimous belief of the Working Group that 
intercity passenger rail is a valuable part of the Nation's 
transportation system, our colleagues' proposal could create a crisis 
in rail transportation in the one corridor where it is most vital, and 
lead to the erosion or collapse of rail service in other regions of the 
country. We believe that further analysis of the costs and benefits is 
needed before reaching the conclusion that intercity rail operating and 
infrastructure units should be separated. In our judgment, such a 
strategy would result in greater costs to the taxpayer, more 
bureaucracy, and fewer trains.
    While our worst fears may not be realized, we strongly urge the 
Congress to undertake a more thorough analysis of the tools necessary 
for lowering costs and raising revenues before adopting their 
recommendations.

    [Clerk's note.--The appendixes to this report do not appear 
in the hearing record, but are available for review in the 
subcommittee's files.]
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. POOLE, JR., PRESIDENT, THE 
            REASON FOUNDATION
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Poole.
    Mr. Poole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I am Bob Poole, president of Reason Foundation, which is a 
public policy think tank based in Los Angeles. We have been 
researching privatization for 20 years now and my own expertise 
is in privatizing transportation and infrastructure functions. 
My testimony is based in part on the study that we did last 
fall called ``Replacing Amtrak.''
    Troubled railroads are not unique to the United States.
    Senator Shelby. If we could, I would like to make that 
study part of the record.
    Mr. Poole. We will be happy to provide a copy for that, 
yes, sir.
    [The Information follows:]
  Replacing Amtrak: A Blueprint for Sustainable Passenger Rail Service

                          (By Joseph Vranich)

                                [part 1]
                              introduction
    Amtrak was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 as a 
``for-profit corporation'' to revitalize intercity passenger rail 
service. It assumed responsibility for such service on May 1, 1971, 
relieving the private railroad industry of much of the financial losses 
incurred in operating such trains. Compared with promises made then, 
Amtrak's costs and public subsidies are far higher and ridership far 
lower than projections. Amtrak generally operates routes that meet 
political needs but not market demand.
    A view is emerging, including among Amtrak's founders, that Amtrak 
needs to be eliminated while maintaining passenger train service on 
America's few busy lines. Which lines to keep? Kenneth M. Mead of the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) has indicated to Congress that ``Five 
of Amtrak's forty-four routes, the ones in the Northeast and Southern 
California, account for over 50 percent of all riders, 56 percent of 
revenues, and 40 percent of costs.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Amtrak's Current Situation, Hearings before the U.S. House of 
Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
Subcommittee on Railroads, February 7, 10, and 13, 1995, p. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anthony Haswell, considered the ``father of Amtrak,'' said several 
years ago: ``Twenty-five years after I set out to save the American 
passenger train, I feel personally embarrassed over what I helped to 
create.'' \2\ Haswell, decrying Amtrak's commitment to long-distance 
trains, declares ``there is no longer a need or place in the United 
States for a year-round interconnected national network of passenger 
trains.'' \3\ He urges creation of new entities to run regionalized 
services.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Anthony Haswell letter to Carl Swanson, Passenger Train 
Journal, October 12, 1992.
    \3\ Anthony Haswell, telephone interview, April 20, 1996.
    \4\ Anthony Haswell, remarks prepared for the Railway & Locomotive 
Historical Society, Chicago, IL, January 11, 1991, and in subsequent 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak supporters argue that Amtrak is an essential service that 
helps reduce airport congestion. Yet, even on many short-distance 
routes where it's faster to take Amtrak, people continue to fly because 
``many travelers no more think of trains than of horses.'' \5\ Amtrak 
carries an infinitesimal amount of traffic. If all Amtrak trains except 
those in the Northeast and Southern California stopped, not a single 
flight would be added to the nation's air system. Further, no amount of 
marketing will change the uneconomical nature of long-distance 
passenger trains serving an outdated common-carrier role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Susan Carey, ``Even When It's Quicker to Travel by Train, Many 
Fly,'' Wall Street Journal, August 29, 1997, p. B1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Useful passenger trains can survive an Amtrak liquidation. Betsy 
Reveal, while serving as Amtrak's chief financial officer, said: ``I 
think there's two questions: `What's the future of passenger rail in 
America?' There is a completely separate question, which is, `What's 
the future of Amtrak?' You can imagine a brilliant future with 
passenger rail with Amtrak gone.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Jackie Spinner, ``Amtrak's CFO Is Well Acquainted With Fiscal 
Chaos,'' Washington Post, July 31, 1995, B9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                [part 2]
                           overview of amtrak
                    a. amtrak headed for bankruptcy
    The GAO has warned repeatedly that Amtrak is in a ``financial 
crisis,'' \7\ and Amtrak itself admits a real possibility of a 
bankruptcy and shutdown sometime in 1998.\8\ Amtrak fails to earn 
enough revenues to pay operating expenses and is losing 
disproportionate amounts on long-distance trains. For fiscal year 1996, 
Amtrak's losses by business units amounted to $763.6 million, of which 
$151 million was attributable to its Northeast Corridor Business Unit 
and $342.6 million to its Chicago-based and Oakland, California-based 
Business Units. Another $270 million was assigned to the Corporate 
unit. The losses were reduced somewhat by state subsidies, but the 
situation is that faster trains in the Northeast enjoy better revenue-
to-cost ratios than long-distance trains and slow short-distance trains 
on virtually every other line in the nation.\9\ Amtrak also comes 
nowhere near contributing to capital requirements in a capital-
intensive industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Phyllis F. Scheinberg, U.S. General Accounting Office, 
Testimony before House Subcommittee on Railroads, March 12, 1997; 
Testimony before Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and 
Merchant Marine, March 13, 1997; and Testimony before the Senate 
Committee on Finance, April 23, 1997.
    \8\ Matt Mossman, ``Amtrak close to bankruptcy, executives say,'' 
Boston Globe, May 27, 1997, p. A3.
    \9\ Amtrak Annual Report for 1996, Table 1: fiscal years 1995 and 
1996 Operating Results by Major Business Unit, p. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak attempted to improve performance in 1995 by reducing service 
frequencies--a market-destroying act as several trains began operating 
only three and four days per week.\10\ Yet, the cost-saving process 
failed to reverse Amtrak's poor financial situation. By September 1995, 
Amtrak admitted that less than daily service doesn't work. It 
discontinued service entirely over several routes and increased 
frequency to daily on others in an attempt to ``shift resources to 
routes with the best opportunity for revenue growth.'' \11\ Revenues 
indeed increased, but at a rate insufficient to reverse Amtrak's 
financial standing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ ``Amtrak Board Approves $430 Million Budget Reduction,'' 
Amtrak News Release, December 14, 1994.
    \11\``Amtrak Board Approves Fiscal 97 Business Plan,'' PR Newswire, 
September 24, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Such cost-saving and revenue-building efforts have failed because 
the essence of what they are trying to achieve--save the long-distance 
train--is a lost cause. As Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman 
wrote, ``Like the horse-drawn carriages that traverse North Michigan 
Avenue every evening, Amtrak serves mainly to acquaint moderns with a 
form of transportation that belongs almost entirely to the past. * * * 
Americans have abandoned trains for vehicles that are faster 
(airplanes), cheaper (buses) or more convenient (cars), and nothing is 
going to reverse the trend.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Stephen Chapman, ``Amtrak: A Costly Monument to Nostalgia,'' 
Chicago Tribune, May 11, 1997, p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak service leaves much to be desired. Thomas Downs, when 
becoming Amtrak's president in 1994, said, ``We're selling 
disappointment at the same time we're selling transportation.'' \13\ 
Little has improved since. A review of congressional hearing records 
over Amtrak's life shows inquiry into Amtrak's ballooning deficits, 
late and dirty trains, unsanitary food service, safety issues, 
unreasonable labor costs, and declining market share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Don Phillips, ``Amtrak Is Way Off Track Fiscally, Its 
President and the GAO Say,'' Washington Post, March 18, 1994, p. A9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A recent GAO report reached grim conclusions: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Phyllis F. Scheinberg, U.S. General Accounting Office, 
Intercity Passenger Rail--Amtrak's Financial Crisis Threatens Continued 
Viability, Testimony, Senate Committee on Finance, April 23, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  --Amtrak's financial condition is precarious and heavily dependent on 
        federal operating and capital funds. Amtrak's condition has 
        deteriorated steadily since 1990 and Amtrak is unlikely to 
        overcome its financial problems without significant increases 
        in passenger revenues or subsidies from federal, state, and 
        local governments.
  --In the past two years, passenger revenues, adjusted for inflation, 
        have generally declined, and in fiscal year 1996, the gap 
        between operating deficits and federal operating subsidies 
        began to grow again to levels exceeding those of fiscal year 
        1994, when the continuation of Amtrak's nationwide service was 
        threatened.
  --Amtrak's debt levels have increased significantly. Between fiscal 
        years 1993 and 1996, Amtrak's debt and capital lease 
        obligations increased from $527 million to about $987 million 
        (in 1996 dollars).
  --It is likely Amtrak will continue to require federal financial 
        support--both operating and capital--``well into the future.''
                    b. recent congressional inquiry
    The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in April 1997 
created the Working Group on Inter-City Rail, also known as the ``blue 
ribbon panel'' on Amtrak. Rep. Bud Shuster, committee chairman, said in 
announcing the panel that ``Congress has been faced with claims of an 
Amtrak `crisis' many times in the past. This is the final crisis: the 
alternative is a Penn Central-style bankruptcy, with all of the chaos 
and unpredictability that comes with a bankruptcy and a complete 
shutdown.'' \15\ The panel came to dramatic findings, summarized as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ News Release, House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, April 2, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  --Amtrak is awash in red ink, buffeted by conflicting missions and 
        ballooning debt, and virtually starved for capital in both 
        political and financial terms. These conditions create an 
        untenable outlook for passenger rail in the United States.
  --Amtrak has missed its financial targets. In the next six to twelve 
        months, Amtrak faces a major liquidity crisis and probable 
        bankruptcy.
  --Amtrak does not properly compensate freight railroads for the costs 
        of Amtrak-caused freight train delays, and contracts with 
        railroads should be negotiated based not on federal directive 
        but on commuter railroad experience.
  --Capital and operating funding should be directed toward routes with 
        market potential, which are primarily the higher density inter-
        city corridors.
  --Amtrak's monopoly should end and passenger rail service should be 
        opened to competition.
  --Long-distance trains make more sense as ``rolling National Parks.''
  --Amtrak is requiring large subsidies from taxpayers and those 
        subsidies are not directed to activities of maximum benefit. 
        Funding Amtrak as it is today offers little hope of success and 
        would be irrational--a true waste of taxpayers' money.
  --Reforms launched by Amtrak have not paid off.
  --Transition funding is needed to bring about restructuring.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ A New Vision for America's Passenger Rail, Working Group on 
Inter-City Passenger Rail, Washington, D.C.: House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, June 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      c. amtrak credibility crisis
    While the Working Group's report was quite critical, Amtrak would 
have the public hold more optimistic views. Amtrak claims regarding 
ridership, subsidies, cost recovery, projected revenues, future 
innovations, and prospects for express traffic deserve examination.
1. Ridership and Market Share
    Amtrak has had a history of issuing incorrect projections. In 1977, 
for example, Amtrak estimated to Congress that 25 million passengers 
would ride its trains by 1982.\17\ Amtrak has never achieved that 
figure. Today, not only are Amtrak projections still questionable but 
so are its claims of actual ridership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Amtrak News Release, ``Improvements to Equipment, Track, 
Stations in Amtrak Five-Year Plan,'' October 10, 1977, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Miscounting Commuters.--Amtrak is trying to boost its importance by 
inflating ridership figures. Amtrak now counts as its passengers those 
who also are reported as passengers by local commuter agencies. For 
example, a passenger aboard a Metrolink commuter train between Glendale 
and Los Angeles is counted by Amtrak as passenger, but is also reported 
as such by the local Metrolink agency. The unprecedented practice of 
double counting has permitted Amtrak for several years to claim it 
carries ``55 million people each year.'' \18\ That figure is more than 
double the 19.7 million passengers who rode Amtrak's own trains last 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Thomas Downs, ``Don't Stop Those Trains,'' Washington Post, 
August 17, 1997, page C7, and Letter from the President, Amtrak 1995 
Annual Report, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak justifies this practice because it serves as a contractor 
for the Los Angeles commuter trains, as well as local trains in Boston, 
San Francisco, San Diego, and Baltimore-Washington-Northern Virginia. 
Yet, if Amtrak were abolished the commuter trains would still run. 
Local agencies own their commuter equipment and obtain subsidies apart 
from Amtrak subsidies. In fact, Amtrak is by federal law prohibited 
from using federal intercity subsidies to cross-subsidize commuter 
trains.
    Double-counting isn't found among airlines even when relationships 
are similar to Amtrak-commuter arrangements. Many major airlines 
provide passenger check-in services, baggage loading, refueling and 
other services for regional airlines. The major airlines--under the 
Amtrak standard--could count the regional airline's passengers as their 
own. But airlines don't because that's misrepresentation and the 
Securities and Exchange Commission would stop the practice.
    Overall Ridership Decline.--Amtrak is ballyhooing ridership 
increases in fiscal year 1997 as evidence of revived fortunes. In fact, 
Amtrak is comparing traffic with its wretched 1996 performance when it 
carried only 19.7 million passengers--the lowest in 12 years (see 
Figure 1).\19\ Further, Amtrak's 1996 traffic was barely higher than in 
1977--two decades ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Sources for Figure 1 are Background on Amtrak, September 1978, 
p. 30; Mike Schafer, ``Amtrak's atlas,'' Trains, June 1991, p. 49; and 
Amtrak 1996 Annual report, pp. IV and V.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA24.005

    Amtrak's dismal performance is occurring during a healthy economy, 
when airlines and highways are registering all-time record traffic 
levels. Amtrak remains odd man out, as reflected in an early 1997 story 
on resurgent bus travel: ``Nationwide travel aboard Greyhound, the No. 
I bus carrier, is up more than 12 percent compared with six years ago, 
and travel on Trailways, which has undergone a major expansion, is up 
77 percent during the same period. That compares with a 10 percent 
decline in Amtrak train ridership nationwide and a more than 28 percent 
increase in airplane passengers on U.S. carriers during the same 
period.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Allan Lengel, ``Spinning Their Wheels At the Depot. Rising 
Number of Bus Travelers Keeps D.C. Greyhound Terminal Busy,'' 
Washington Post, April 21, 1997, p. B1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Declining Market Share.--Amtrak has lost market share throughout 
the nation. During 1972, Amtrak's first full year of operation, it was 
estimated that Amtrak carried about 0.8 percent of all passengers 
making intercity trips. Today, Amtrak's share has fallen to a 
microscopic 0.4 percent.\21\ Amtrak's passenger miles have dropped at 
an alarming rate, from 6.273 million in fiscal year 1991 to 5.050 
million in fiscal year 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Jean Love, Wendell Cox, and Stephen Moore, Amtrak at Twenty-
Five: End of the Line for Taxpayer Subsides, Policy Analysis No. 266, 
Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, December 19, 1996, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. population in 1970, the year Congress created Amtrak, was 
203.3 million.\22\ The Census Bureau estimates the September 1, 1997, 
population at 268 million.\23\ In 1972, Amtrak's first full year of 
operation, it carried 16.6 million passengers.\24\ In comparing 1997 
with 1972, Amtrak carried only 3.1 million more passengers despite a 
national population growth of about 60 million. This reflects the worst 
U.S. market penetration of any mode of passenger transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ World Almanac and Book of Facts 1994 (Manwah, N.J.: World 
Almanac), p. 361.
    \23\ U.S. Census Bureau Internet site, Projection page, September 
1, 1997.
    \24\ Background on Amtrak, Washington, D.C.: Amtrak, September, 
1978, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Travel on Amtrak-style overnight trains is declining worldwide 
(China is an exception). In Europe, passenger rail's market share 
dropped by nearly 20 percent in the 1980's, while the airline market 
share increased by 60 percent.\25\ The decline would have been more 
startling except that high-speed and commuter train systems registered 
gains that masked long-distance declines. Railway (gazette 
International editorialized that most European overnight routes ``face 
an uncertain future.'' \26\ The London & Continental Railways recently 
abandoned plans to operate sleeping car trains from Scotland and 
England to Paris via the Channel Tunnel, with chief executive Adam 
Mills stating, ``a night service from the regions is simply not 
viable.'' \27\ The sleeping cars ordered in 1992 are being sent into 
long-term storage, a good example for the United States to follow. 
Amtrak-style conventional trains are being discontinued in countries as 
dissimilar as Argentina and the Czech Republic, whose 1998 timetable 
will show 5,889 trains, down from 6,258.\28\ The Czech Railway is 
curtailing passenger train service despite strident objections by labor 
unions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Jean Love et al., p. 9.
    \26\ ``Last chance to catch the night train,'' Railway Gazette 
International, September 1997, p. 555.
    \27\ ``Sleepers abandoned,'' Railway Gazette International, August 
1997, p. 497.
    \28\ ``Czech Republic,'' International Railway Journal, July 1997.
    \29\ ``Czech-Strike,'' Associated Press, February 4, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rider Demographics.--Amtrak claims to provide mobility to all 
social classes. It is useful to consider a Cato Institute policy 
analysis, which relied on data from the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and Amtrak 
itself. It concluded:

          The poor are not especially heavy users of Amtrak. Three-
        fourths of Amtrak passengers have incomes above the national 
        average. Travel on Amtrak by persons with incomes above $40,000 
        is the highest of any mode--3.5 times higher than on buses and 
        nearly 1.5 times higher than on airlines. Nearly one-third of 
        Amtrak passengers have household incomes of $75,000 or more, 
        and 20 percent have incomes of $100,000 or more. Amtrak's 
        clientele is much more skewed toward higher incomes than the 
        general population.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Jean Love et al., p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Level of Subsidies
    Amtrak's thicket of subsidies is difficult to unravel. Amtrak 
boosters, for example, often cite $13 billion in federal operating 
subsidies as the total Amtrak has received since its inception. In 
fact, if federal capital expenditures for Amtrak are included along 
with Amtrak's funding requests for fiscal year 1998, then federal 
subsidies to Amtrak will total $20.4 billion.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ For a year-by-year breakdown of Amtrak subsidies, see Joseph 
Vranich, Derailed: What Went Wrong and What to Do About America is 
Passenger Trains, ``Amtrak's Structural Problems,'' Chapter Two (New 
York: St. Martin's Press, October 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But even this figure is understated since Amtrak has obfuscated its 
capital subsidies. In a 1997 submission to the GAO,\32\ Amtrak failed 
to list capital funds received through a federally guaranteed loan 
process, a costly arrangement to the public treasury. Amtrak has never 
repaid $880 million in loans received between 1971 and 1975, and that 
obligation plus $239.6 million in interest were paid by the Federal 
Railroad Administration (FRA) on Amtrak's behalf. Although current 
reports ignore this obligation, an earlier Amtrak annual report states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Amtrak Appropriations History, Amtrak finance and Planning 
Department, submitted to the u.S. General Accounting Office, March 5, 
1997.

          September 30, 1983, Amtrak had borrowed under notes payable 
        to the Federal Financing Bank up to its maximum Federal 
        guaranteed loan authority of $880,000,000. On October 5, 1983, 
        this obligation, plus $239,635,000 in accrued interest, was 
        paid on Amtrak's behalf by the Federal Railroad Administration, 
        and a new note in the amount of $1,119,635,000 was executed as 
        of that date between Amtrak and the U.S. Government. The note 
        matures on November 1, 2082, and will be renewed for successive 
        99-year terms. Interest is payable only in the event of 
        prepayment or acceleration of the principal.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Amtrak Annual Report for 1983, Notes to Financial Statements, 
Note 4, p. 25.

    Thus, if this $1.1 billion is added to the previously cited $20.4 
billion figure, the federal government's expenditures and current 
obligations for Amtrak total at least $21.5 billion. Add operating and 
capital subsidies from states and it's possible to add at least another 
$1 billion in taxpayer funding for a $22.5 billion total.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ The states are Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, 
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, 
North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington and 
Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There's more. These calculations exclude funding for Amtrak from 
five federal programs that are outside Amtrak's budget--grants for 
grade crossings, high-speed rail studies, intermodal stations, 
enhancements to historic buildings, and technology development. Also, 
some states rely on a sixth program, grants from the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA), to aid Amtrak. Vermont's use of $3.5 million in 
FTA funds to finance a train to Rutland,\35\ and Pennsylvania's use of 
$18.7 million from FTA to underwrite coaches for Amtrak's Philadelphia-
Harrisburg line are recent examples.\36\ Also uncalculated are state 
and local funds for stations; the most recent example is $30 million 
from New York state towards the $315 million conversion of Manhattan's 
former central post office into an Amtrak station.\37\ None of these 
examples are part of the $22.5 billion amount cited above, and, 
unfortunately, the GAO has not included in reports to Congress the 
extent of Amtrak's dependence on non-Amtrak public funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ ``Vermont Gets Another Train,'' Passenger Train Journal, 
November 1996, p. 8.
    \36\ ``Federal Funds Approved To Help PennDOT Buy New Trains,'' PR 
Newswire, September 16, 1997.
    \37\ ``State OK's Funding,'' Rail News, October 1997, pp. 64-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Misleading Cost Recovery Claims
    In recent congressional statements, Amtrak claims it ``covers more 
of its operating costs--an estimated 84 percent--than any other 
passenger railroad in the world.'' \38\ Admittedly, accounting systems 
on railroads are complex. Yet, it appears Amtrak's claim of superiority 
can be made (1) only if $1.1 billion in principal and interest are 
ignored for Amtrak's federally guaranteed loans but counted for similar 
loans to foreign railroads; (2) only by classifying state subsidies to 
Amtrak as ``revenue'' (which Amtrak does in its annual report \39\) 
while provincial funds for overseas railroads are ``subsidies.'' The 
GAO has pointed out additional discrepancies:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Thomas Downs, Testimony, Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, March 
13,1997, p. 3.
    \39\ Amtrak Annual Report for 1996, Statistical Appendix, p. II, at 
``Revenues,'' which includes ``403B services,'' a term for state 
subsidies.

          Amtrak's revenue-to-expense ratio for fiscal year 1993 
        indicated that revenues were covering about 80 percent of 
        operating expenses. However, the calculation of this ratio 
        excluded certain expenses, including (1) depreciation; (2) the 
        FRA mandatory retirement payment; (3) various taxes paid to 
        federal or state governments; (4) user fees assessed by the 
        FRA; (5) other miscellaneous expenses relating to accident 
        claims; and (5) losses incurred in providing [state-subsidized] 
        service and disbursements for labor protection, which according 
        to an Amtrak official, are excluded at the direction of the 
        Congress. We believe all relevant costs, both capital and 
        operating, should be included in any performance measurement. 
        Because it excludes certain relevant expenses, Amtrak's ratio 
        does not reflect the ability of the corporation's revenues to 
        cover all costs of operating Amtrak.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Kenneth M. Mead, Amtrak: Deteriorated Financial Condition and 
Costly Future Challenges, Testimony, House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, March 
23, 1994, p. 5.

    Thus, Amtrak reduces its ratio by removing from the calculation 
hundreds of millions of dollars in costs. If such additional expenses 
for fiscal year 1993, which totaled about $370 million, had been 
included in the calculation, the GAO believes the ratio would have been 
only 66 percent, or 14 percentage points lower than reported by Amtrak.
4. Amtrak High-Speed Rail Predictions
    Perhaps as early as 1999, Amtrak's New York-Washington Metroliners 
will be replaced by American Flyer trains, capable of 150 mph, which 
also will operate from New York to Boston. Amtrak projects profits for 
the service, yet the level of profitability is questionable. The 
American Flyer will travel at slower average speeds than Spain operated 
in the early 1990's, France in the 1980's, and Japan in the 1970's.\41\ 
Thus, Amtrak's air-competitiveness in the future, particularly between 
Boston and New York, will pale in comparison to that of high-speed 
lines overseas in the past. A relationship exists between travel time 
and market penetration, and it's doubtful that Amtrak's American Flyer 
will come near meeting the ridership or profitability levels of the 
successful overseas systems. Furthermore, conventional Amtrak trains in 
the Northeast that run on slower schedules will continue to lose money. 
These factors will limit Amtrak's ability to use Northeast Corridor 
profits to cross-subsidize long-distance trains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ For a review of Amtrak's record regarding Boston-Washington 
service since 1971, see Vranich, Derailed, ``Sidetracking High Speed 
Trains,'' Chapter Four.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak has a record of issuing inaccurate projections. Reported 
GAO: ``From 1991 to 1994, revenues were lower than projected, while 
expenses were higher than planned,'' with Amtrak overestimating 
passenger revenues by $600 million in that period.\42\ For fiscal years 
1995 and 1996, Amtrak miscalculated net losses by $127 million. For 
fiscal year 1997, Amtrak revised its net loss projection upward three 
times--first it was $726 million, then $762 million, and by April 1997 
was $786 million.\43\ How can projections of American Flyer profits 
years from now be credible when Amtrak's current-year projections 
contain such wide discrepancies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Mead, Deteriorated Financial and Operating Conditions, 
Testimony, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 
January 26, 1995, pp. 3-4.
    \43\ Scheinberg, April 23, 1997, p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak ``high-speed'' efforts elsewhere are neither high-speed nor 
likely to cover costs. For example, Amtrak claims its ``high-speed'' 
Talgo trains will ``revolutionize transportation in the Northwest.'' 
\44\ However, Amtrak's current Seattle-Vancouver, B.C., Talgo schedule 
of 3 hours and 55 minutes is identical to the running time of trains on 
that route run by the Great Northern Railway in 1952--45 years ago. On 
the Seattle-Portland route, Amtrak's fastest Talgo runs in 3 hours and 
50 minutes, or 9 minutes faster than a 1952 train.\45\ Amtrak plans to 
cut Seattle-Portland Talgo schedules to perhaps 3 hours and 15 
minutes,\46\ or 15 minutes faster than what Amtrak offered on its first 
day of business in 1971.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\``Talgo Inc. Announces Washington State Train,'' Business Wire, 
March 19. 1997.
    \45\ Amtrak National Timetable, Effective May 11, 1997, p. 48, and 
The Official Guide of the Railways (New York: National Railway 
Publication Co., June 1952), p. 1071.
    \46\ J. David Ingles, ``Talgo tests to yield more utilization in 
Northwest,'' Trains Online, September 11, 1997, p. 5.
    \47\ Amtrak Nationwide Schedules, May 1, 1971, p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Slow schedules on Amtrak's ``emerging corridors'' will limit 
Amtrak's ability to build the premium-fare traffic that helps to 
establish profits. It's reasonable to conclude that future revenues 
from such routes will be insufficient to subsidize the rest of Amtrak's 
system.
5. Amtrak's New Freight Business
    Amtrak's latest miscalculation is to try to enter the freight 
business--an activity that is extraneous to Amtrak's passenger mission 
and violates Amtrak's enabling legislation. It also could prove costly 
should Amtrak even partially shut down.
    When Congress amended the Rail Passenger Service Act to permit 
Amtrak to carry ``express,'' such was understood to mean a small-
package, retail-oriented service. It was expected that express would 
incrementally increase Amtrak revenues with few added costs, since 
agents already were on duty and no extra rail cars were required. Using 
this authority, Amtrak claims to have started an ``express'' business 
to carry specialty commodities like ``computer chips'' and items that 
need ``relatively fast handling.'' \48\ In reality, however, Amtrak has 
an ambitious plan to lease 600 rail cars and has begun to carry beer, 
coiled steel, soft drinks, truck parts, canned pineapple, cranberry 
juice, and other commodities.\49\ This is not ``express'' in the 
traditional sense--this is freight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ ``Amtrak Seeks New Freight Business,'' Railway Age, April 
1997, p. 28.
    \49\ Daniel Machalaba, ``Amtrak Quietly Hauls Cargo on Its Trains, 
To the Horror of Rivals,'' Wall Street Journal, July 30, 1997, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This effort violates the basic tenet of why Amtrak was 
established--to create an organization dedicated to serving passengers, 
not commodities. Union Pacific's director of public affairs, John E. 
Bromley, said in Trains magazine: ``Amtrak's original franchise 
authorized it to carry mail and express incidental to operation of its 
passenger trains, not to carry passengers incidental to operation of 
freight trains.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ John E. Bromley, ``UP Responds to Amtrak Issue,'' Trains, 
September 1997, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reported the Wall Street Journal: `` `It's flatly 
unconstitutional,' says James Dolan, vice president, law, of [the] 
Union Pacific Railroad. `They are using their special passenger-train 
franchise to steal business from the freight railroads.' '' \51\ His 
concern is legitimate. The Rail Passenger Service Act obligates freight 
railroads to carry Amtrak trains over their tracks and give Amtrak 
priority over freight trains. The problem is Amtrak trains could delay 
freight trains to the detriment of the freight railroads.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Machalaba.
    \52\ Don Phillips, ``Ailing Amtrak Adds Freight-Hauling to Its 
Line,'' Washington Post, March 12, 1997, p. C10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Carrying freight on Amtrak passenger trains imposes new demands on 
railroad infrastructure, raising compensation concerns. An economic 
analysis by Union Pacific calculated that Amtrak underpaid $56.2 
million in one year alone to operate 40-plus trains on their railroad. 
Progressive Railroading quoted Union Pacific's Ed Trandahl: ``In 1995, 
Amtrak paid Union Pacific $9.9 million to operate on 10,000 miles of UP 
track; a freight railroad would've paid more than $66 million.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Pat Foran, ``For Amtrak, freight can't wait, Progressive 
Railroading, April 1997, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By carrying freight, Amtrak hopes to preserve trains politically 
useful to Amtrak (such as the Texas Eagle, which now hauls beer) 
despite being marketplace losers. The ploy is questionable because 
Amtrak's long-distance trains will continue to lose money. Amtrak said 
the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief earns about 42 percent of its 
revenue carrying mail. Despite that, the train lost $35.3 million in 
1996 on a fully allocated cost basis.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Amtrak, fiscal year 1996 Fourth Quarter and Year End Business 
and Financial Performance Report, October 1996, Appendix II. p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak passengers have begun to receive second-class treatment 
while freight receives priority. In Chicago, riders have begun to 
suffer extra delays while poky locomotives uncouple boxcars from Amtrak 
trains.\55\ On August 21, 1997, when the FRA issued a safety order 
regarding Amtrak freight cars, the Southwest Chief was delayed in New 
Mexico for several hours while such cars were shunted around.\56\ 
Amtrak plans to institutionalize freight-related delays by lengthening 
schedules a half-hour in Chicago for some trains and 20 minutes in 
Dallas and Fort Worth for the already slow Texas Eagle.\57\ If a 
passenger backlash occurs because interminable train trips become even 
longer, and passenger revenue declines, what will have been achieved?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Machalaba.
    \56\ J. David Ingles, ``To the Front, March,'' Trains Online, 
August 27, 1997, p. 5.
    \57\ J. David Ingles, ``Express First, People Second,'' Trains 
Online, September 4, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With Amtrak liquidation possible, it's unwise for Amtrak to assign 
more employees to freight. Under the Railway Labor Act, Amtrak must 
provide employees with a costly labor protection plan. A worker whose 
job is lost because of a route discontinuance is eligible for a 
ridiculously generous severance of up to six years of salary. Any time 
Amtrak shifts workers from a short-distance service (the type that 
might survive a shutdown) to a long-distance service (the kind that 
should be discontinued), Amtrak is making more employees eligible for 
severance. It's also unwise to be purchasing or leasing hundreds of new 
freight cars. The costs to divest these cars, disband Amtrak's new 
freight department, and provide labor protection will put taxpayers in 
the outrageous position of subsidizing Amtrak's entry into the freight 
business today and subsidizing its exit tomorrow. America will pay 
twice for a service Amtrak should not have launched in the first place.
6. Amtrak's ``Privatized'' Status
    Amtrak has exhibited shades of privatization in its procurement of 
American Flyer trains. The builders, Bombardier and GEC Alsthom, will 
finance much of the transaction by borrowing from banks, although at 
preferential rates because the loans are guaranteed by the Export-
Import Bank.\58\ Amtrak also required the bidders to sign long-term 
maintenance and management contracts, a form of outsourcing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Matthew L. Wald, ``Builder Is Chosen for Speedy Trains on 
Northeast Run,'' New York Times, March 16, 1996, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Generally, however, Amtrak has sought to undermine the concept of 
privatizing Amtrak. Amtrak President Thomas Downs has said, ``We are 
probably the most privatized passenger railroad in the world.'' \59\ 
His assertion fails many tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Amtrak's Current Situation, p. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak is a quasi-public corporation and its stock ownership is 
unique. Amtrak's preferred shares are owned by the U.S. government and 
its common stock is considered worthless by railroad owners; in 
privatized rail companies, shares usually are traded on stock 
exchanges. Amtrak has never paid a dividend; privatized companies 
generally do. The Amtrak Board of Directors is appointed by the 
President and includes elected officials; these practices are unheard 
of in private companies. Also, the Supreme Court in a free-speech case 
has ruled that Amtrak is a government entity, not a private 
corporation, and could be sued on that basis.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ ``Can Amtrak Be a Censor?'' Editorial, Washington Post, 
February 23, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amtrak, which can perish simply by federal edict, is a nationalized 
service.
                                [part 3]
                    the choices facing america today
                 a. the call for alternatives to amtrak
    Support for Amtrak is weakening. In September 1997, the Arizona 
Rail Passenger Association called for Amtrak's breakup--a striking 
departure from its 19-year record of support for Amtrak. It urged a 
return of long-distance passenger trains to railroads, a shift in 
responsibility for short-distance trains to states, and transfer of the 
Boston-Washington line to a new regional agency.
    Michael R. Carey, the organization's president, said there is no 
reasonable prospect that Amtrak will bring about truly modern passenger 
service. He wrote: ``Outside of the Northeast Corridor and a few other 
places, Amtrak trains operate on slower schedules than trains over the 
same routes of 50 to 60 years ago. On top of that, their on-time 
performance on these slower schedules is terrible. . . . Public 
subsidization of that kind of rail service makes no more sense today 
than would subsidization of stage coach lines in competition with the 
railroads between 1870 and 1900 have been justifiable at that time.'' 
\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Michael R. Garey, President, Arizona Rail Passenger 
Association, Letter to U.S. Senator John McCain, September 4, 1997, p. 
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are three key elements in replacing Amtrak: privatization, 
regionalization, and liquidation. All three have been used in rail 
reorganization worldwide.
                            b. privatization
    The United States has already privatized a railroad, Conrail, the 
large freight line in the East and Midwest. With about $7 billion in 
federal aid, Conrail revitalized the lines of six bankrupt railroads 
including Penn Central's. The federal government owned 85 percent of 
Conrail, prior to privatizing it under the 1981 Northeast Rail Services 
Act. When Conrail was sold for $1.6 billion on March 26, 1987, it 
became the largest initial public stock offering in the nation's 
history.\62\ Conrail's value increased over the years and by 1997 CSX 
and Norfolk Southern made competing $10.3 billion merger offers to 
Conrail shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ A Brief History of Conrail, Philadelphia: Conrail, 1996, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, privatization of railroads, including freight and passenger 
operations, is underway in 40 nations (see Table 1). Public-sector 
railroads overseas have suffered from excessive control by the 
government, slow reaction to marketplace changes, archaic labor 
practices, insensitivity to local needs, and excessive need for 
subsidies. Those also are Amtrak's problems.

                                TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF RAIL PRIVATIZATION WORLDWIDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Private                 Privatization
                                   Franchise    Public to     Private       funds       Devolve       planning
             Country               to private    private      funds in    raised in    service to    underway,
                                      rail     fixed asset    new rail      stock      States or       plans
                                   operators     transfer    facilities    offering     regions      incomplete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina \1\...................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........            X  .............
Australia \1\...................            X            X            X  ...........  ...........  .............
Austria.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........            X  .............
Bolivia.........................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Brazil \1\......................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Cameroon........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Canada..........................            X            X  ...........            X  ...........  .............
Chile \1\.......................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
China...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........            X  ...........  .............
Colombia \1\....................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Congo...........................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Costa Rica \1\..................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Czech Rep.......................  ...........            X  ...........  ...........            X  .............
Ecuador.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Estonia.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
France..........................  ...........  ...........            X            X  ...........  .............
Gabon...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Germany.........................  ...........  ...........            X  ...........            X  .............
Great Britain \1\...............            X  ...........            X            X  ...........  .............
Guatemala \1\...................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
India...........................            X  ...........            X  ...........  ...........  .............
Israel..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Ivory Coast.....................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Jordan..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Japan...........................  ...........            X            X            X            X  .............
Latvia..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Lithuania.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Malawi..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Malaysia........................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Mexico \1\......................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Mozambique \1\..................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Netherlands.....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
New Zealand \1\.................            X  ...........  ...........            X  ...........  .............
Pakistan........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Panama \1\......................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Paraguay........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Peru \1\........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Portugal........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Russia..........................  ...........            X            X            X            X  .............
Slovakia........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
South Africa....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Taiwan..........................            X  ...........            X  ...........  ...........  .............
Togo............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........            X             X
Uruguay.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Venezuela.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Vietnam.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Zambia..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Zimbabwe........................  ...........  ...........            X  ...........  ...........  .............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ Privatization activity involving U.S. railroads or rail consulting firms.

    ``The least costly option [for Amtrak] may be the one the 
government so far has avoided: privatization,'' said Bruce Chapman, 
president of the Discovery Institute. ``Alternative approaches include 
opening the service to bidders, with a built-in subsidy for a period of 
transition.'' States could help maintain routes in their territories, 
as many already do.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Bruce Chapman, ``Amtrak heading toward a train wreck,'' 
Seattle Post-lntelligencer, May 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The range of franchising (sometimes called concessioning) 
arrangements varies widely between, say, the United Kingdom and 
Argentina, as discussed in the Appendix. Yet, concessionaires 
consistently increase railroad revenues through innovative marketing 
practices and lower costs through improved efficiency. For unprofitable 
rail service that must remain for social reasons, planners are lowering 
subsidy requirements through franchising or spinoffs to regional or 
local governments.
    Most nations require private-sector financing in new high-speed 
passenger facilities; the participants include banks, construction 
companies, and the public (through share offerings). Amtrak's operating 
losses, combined with its poor reputation, serve as a restraint to 
private financing of its infrastructure.
    Dismantling Amtrak would improve the environment for private-sector 
investment in passenger rail facilities which make market sense.
    The freight railroads in the United States have demonstrated they 
are interested in privatization opportunities. These firms have gotten 
involved in passenger issues as they meet franchise terms in other 
countries, sometimes running the passenger trains.
                           c. regionalization
    The United States has already regionalized rail service.
    The Alaska Railroad was defederalized through the Alaska Railroad 
Transfer Act of 1982, in which Congress agreed that ``continued federal 
control and financial support of the line are no longer necessary to 
accomplish the objectives of serving Alaska and its people.'' \64\ The 
railroad's performance is outstanding; it carried more than a half a 
million passengers in 1996, an all-time record.\65\ The Alaska Railroad 
carries more passengers on one rural, highly seasonal route than Amtrak 
does on many of its more populated short-distance routes, such as 
Chicago-St. Louis and Chicago-Cincinnati, or long-distance routes, with 
the Chicago-Boston Lake Shore Limited and Los Angeles-New Orleans-
Orlando Sunset Limited being just two examples of many.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ The Alaska Railroad Historical Summary, Anchorage: Alaska 
Railroad, undated.
    \65\ The number of passengers was 518,867 according to Scott Banks, 
Alaska Railroad Communications Office, telephone interview, August 29, 
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State and regional authorities could retain certain Amtrak train 
services. California has begun a localization process that could lead 
to non-Amtrak operation of state-supported Amtrak trains. Florida 
rejected a high-speed rail franchise application from a consortium that 
included Amtrak. Dallas selected Burlington Northern Santa Fe and 
Herzog Transit Services, Inc., over Amtrak to provide contract services 
for commuter rail. Also, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 
stated it may terminate Amtrak as a contractor for Boston commuter 
service because of poor performance.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ Thomas C. Palmer Jr., ``MBTA chairman calls for end to Amtrak 
contract,'' Boston Globe, March 7, 1997, p. B5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regionalizing Amtrak services can reduce costs as well as increase 
revenues. Cost savings could come about in three ways: (1) substituting 
a daytime coach-only train for an overnight train that carries sleeping 
cars, the most expensive type of car to operate; (2) avoiding payments 
for Amtrak overhead costs, which are considerable; and (3) using the 
competitive bid process in awarding franchises. According to E. S. 
``Steve'' Savas, director of the Privatization Research Organization at 
New York City's Baruch College, ``The most important single attribute 
of contracting is that when properly done, it creates and 
institutionalizes competition, which is the underlying factor that 
encourages better performance.'' It also ``permits better management, 
free of most of the distracting influences that are characteristic of 
overtly political organizations [and] fosters good management because 
the cost of a service is highly visible in the price of the contract, 
whereas the cost of government service is usually obscured.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Savas, Emanuel S. Privatization: The Key to Better Government, 
Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers, 1987, pages 109, 110 and 262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             d. liquidation
    Numerous issues are involved in liquidating Amtrak, such as the 
sale of assets at fair cost. Locomotives and passenger cars could be 
sold to regional operators that will replace Amtrak, to commuter rail 
systems, or to private operators of seasonal land-cruise trains. 
Locomotives surplus to those markets could be sold to freight 
railroads.
    A regional agency could own the Northeast Corridor line. This idea 
originated with Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island in 1962, when he 
advocated creating a multi-state public body funded by bonds to acquire 
the Boston-Washington line.\68\ The idea is being revived by passenger-
rail advocate Anthony Haswell, who suggests establishing an authority 
through an interstate compact to own the line. The authority would 
charge usage fees to a variety of operators. Some would object to 
Northwestern states having to self-finance their passenger rail line, 
yet California has paid for nearly all capital improvements and much of 
the operating subsidies for Amtrak's Los Angeles-San Diego service. 
Also, the federal government has declined to assist Florida in 
financing a new Miami-Tampa rail line, an asset that would remain under 
state ownership once built. No justification exists for one federal 
standard to apply in the Northeast while another applies in the west 
and south.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ ``8 States in East Urged to Create a Rail Authority'' and 
``Pell's Statement on Northeast Rail Agency.'' New York Times, May 21, 
1962, p. 1 and p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is sometimes suggested that railroad companies own or lease the 
Northeast Corridor because private-sector management could operate it 
at a profit. Whether the line is operated by a regional public agency 
or private interests will depend upon how the federal government 
structures a transfer, lease or sale of the asset.
                                [part 4]
                         policy recommendations
    Other nations are privatizing state-owned enterprises extensively 
with the approval of public officials across the political spectrum. 
Today, with more than 100 countries engaged in privatization, the 
process has become non-ideological.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ For a summary, see Robert W. Poole, Jr., A Federal 
Privatization Agenda, Testimony, Senate Budget Committee, June 29, 
1995; also, Privatization 1996: A Comprehensive Report on Privatization 
of Government Assets, Enterprises, and Public Services, both from the 
Reason Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         a. current legislation
    Privatization and Route Closure Bills.--Several current measures 
recognize Amtrak's failings.
    The Amtrak Route Closure and Realignment Act, modeled after base-
closing legislation, would create a commission to identify Amtrak 
routes that are candidates for termination. It would not require Amtrak 
to remain a national, interconnected system.
    Another bill, the Amtrak Privatization Act, reduces appropriations, 
limits judicial review of train discontinuances, reduces job protection 
provisions, and amends the unique and obsolete Federal Employers' 
Liability Act (which applies only to railroads) to exempt those who 
provide rail passenger transportation.
    Also, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act establishes a Reform 
Council to evaluate Amtrak. If the council finds Amtrak failing to meet 
certain financial goals, a ``Sunset Trigger'' requires submission of 
two plans to Congress--one to slim down Amtrak and another to 
completely liquidate Amtrak.
    Other Bills Are Excessively Generous.--Several measures would give 
Amtrak billions of dollars in Highway Trust Fund gas taxes, which 
Amtrak may use for operating expenses--unheard of in highway and 
aviation systems. This permissive use of fuel taxes would launch new 
precedents and would prove costly. Gas-tax money is still a tax, and 
using that fund instead of the general fund to subsidize Amtrak won't 
save taxpayers any money nor create an efficient rail system.
    By mid-1997, with gas-tax measures failing, the Senate inserted 
into the Taxpayer Relief Act a tax break for Amtrak calculated on a 
tax-loss carry-back plan. As explained by the Washington Post, ``Amtrak 
will be able to deduct its financial losses from the portion of taxes 
paid by the private railroads that operated passenger trains prior to 
1971--before Amtrak existed--up to $2.3 billion over the next two 
years. Amtrak, itself, has never paid taxes because it has never made 
money, and therefore has never had anything from which to deduct its 
losses.'' \70\ The measure, if utilized, will cost taxpayer dearly. 
Congress Daily reported that to fund it, Amtrak's Capitol Hill 
supporters raised $2 billion more in the tax bill than required by the 
budget agreement.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Don Philips and Paul Blustein, ``Perils Loom for Amtrak in 
Unsettled Tax Issues,'' Washington Post, July 31, 1997, p. A13.
    \71\ ``Roth Unlinks Gas Tax Shift, New Funding For Amtrak,'' 
Congress Daily, July 22, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    b. amtrak denationalization act
    With ample evidence that federal funding of Amtrak can no longer be 
justified on fiscal or mobility grounds, there is every justification 
to initiate an orderly phase-out of Amtrak. A Rail Service 
Denationalization Act would be similar to action taken in legislatures 
overseas. Such a measure would contain the following provisions:
  --Substitute for the Rail Passenger Service Act, the law that created 
        Amtrak and gave Amtrak its statutory monopoly.
  --Repeal the Swift Rail Development Act and the Next Generation High-
        Speed Rail section of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
        Efficiency Act. The laws were designed to nurture high-speed 
        rail but instead have become vehicles to finance slow-speed 
        Amtrak projects.
  --Create an Amtrak Transition Board (ATB) to manage privatization and 
        regionalization of service and divest Amtrak assets. 
        Protections similar to those granted to the military-base 
        closing commission would insulate the ATB against political 
        interference.
  --Name the ATB as Amtrak's successor agency, assigning to it the 
        legal liabilities that will remain after Amtrak is dissolved.
  --Establish an Amtrak ``sunset'' date. To allow time for asset 
        disposition and other steps to be completed, the sunset date of 
        the ATB would follow by several years.
  --Continue Northeast Corridor capital funding, but not expand or 
        extend the program. This is Amtrak's busiest line, and 
        completing the upgrading project will make it easier to sell 
        the line to private interests or transfer it to the states. 
        This represents a lesson learned in privatization--it is easier 
        to divest an asset when it is efficient. Also, because parts of 
        the line are deteriorating, such expenditures can help insure 
        safety.
  --Impose a moratorium on all other Amtrak capital funding and seek to 
        cancel Amtrak orders for locomotives, freight cars, and other 
        equipment.
  --Set caps on operating subsidies. States should be given limited 
        access to such funds, perhaps based on train-miles operated, to 
        assist in the transition to regional service. Federal subsidies 
        should scale downward to eventual termination.
  --Pre-authorize creation of an interstate compact composed of the 
        eight northeastern states and the District of Columbia to 
        facilitate Northeast Corridor rail service in a post-Amtrak 
        era. It should also authorize ``any and all'' future compacts 
        that states may wish to form, without the need for further 
        federal action.
  --Establish a ``post-Amtrak passenger-rail employee'' category of 
        worker who is exempt from unique, costly and unwieldy laws like 
        the Railway Labor Act, Federal Employers' Liability Act, 
        Railroad Retirement Act, and Railroad Unemployment Insurance 
        Act. Putting railroad passenger employees under mainstream laws 
        such as Social Security will induce investment, create rail 
        jobs, and foster rail service to places that otherwise would be 
        without such service.
                                [part 5]
                  rail service in a post-amtrak world
    Train service based on market demand and local decision-making will 
demonstrate that the mass movement of people by train can succeed under 
certain circumstances.
                          a. commuter service
    Not one commuter train need be discontinued because of Amtrak's 
demise. Where Amtrak operates such local trains, mechanisms exist to 
permit commuter authorities to operate the trains themselves or seek 
new contractors. If countries as diverse as Great Britain, Japan, New 
Zealand, and Argentina could accomplish such a transition, so can the 
United States. Further, some of America's busiest commuter systems, 
such as the Long Island Rail Road and Chicago's Metra, already operate 
independently of Amtrak.
                          b. regional service
    Over the years states like California and New York assumed 
significant responsibilities for funding Amtrak, and ridership 
increases in such states are due to state initiatives. Regional trains 
can remain in service as states accept more responsibility for them. 
Japan, Germany, and Russia have regionalized passenger trains; so can 
the United States.
                            c. land cruises
    Transportation is not sentimental, and Americans rarely treat it as 
such when traveling by air, bus or automobile. Yet, there is a market 
for sentimental rail journeys. Anthony Haswell says long-distance 
trains should be confined to seasonal operations aimed at vacationers 
and tourists who are willing to pay the price for a unique travel 
experience.
    Such a market is tapped today by private-sector rail passenger 
operators like the American Orient Express, Montana Daylight, Napa 
Valley Wine Train, First American Railways, and Grand Canyon Railway. 
Also, tour companies cater to the leisure market by running seasonal 
cars as part of the Alaska Railroad train. Companies like these--and 
virtually all of them are enjoying growing ridership--could transform 
some Amtrak long-distance services into seasonal land-cruise trains.
    Private operators, even when receiving Amtrak services, can outlive 
Amtrak. The Orlando Sentinel reported that Florida Fun Train, owned by 
First American Railways, would survive: ``If Amtrak folds, said Ray 
Monteleone, president and chief operating officer, First American would 
look elsewhere to lease or try to lease the locomotives from whomever 
took over Amtrak's assets. The company also would have to find new 
maintenance crews. `It would be an aggravation,' he said, `but it 
wouldn't mean our existence.' '' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ Jim Stratton, ``Amtrak's Troubles Won't Take Any Steam Out of 
Central Florida Tourism,'' Orlando Sentinel, June 2, 1997, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        d. high speed consortia
    The disappearance of Amtrak will end the pretext that federal 
funding will bring about world-class high-speed train service in this 
nation. In time, privatized entities can develop short-distance routes 
that make market sense. Amtrak is unable to accomplish this task 
because of its national mandate and the political consequences that 
stem from that mandate.
                        e. teaming arrangements
    Rail.--It's possible for rail-air and rail-tour partnerships to 
provide rail passenger service. The railroads would provide operating 
crews (engineers, conductors) while airlines or tour operators provide 
service staff (ticket agents, food service personnel). America's 
freight railroads already operate commuter trains--Union Pacific in 
Chicago and Los Angeles, Burlington Northern Santa Fe in Chicago--and 
cooperate with land-cruise operators like the American Orient Express.
    Aviation.--Britain's Virgin Trains, a unit of Virgin Atlantic 
Airlines, is monitoring prospects for replacing Amtrak.\73\ Airlines 
participate in operating passenger trains in Britain and Germany 
(Virgin Trains and Lufthansa), and a land-cruise train in India (East-
West Airlines \74\). Airlines cooperate in establishing rail-air 
transfers (Swissair, KLM, Lufthansa, Air France, Alitalia), and in 
train technology efforts (Japan Air Lines, Lufthansa, Swissair, Qantas, 
Delta Air Lines, USAirways).\75\ Aviation is combining efforts with the 
bus industry, with United Airlines and American Airlines now operating 
feeder buses to Chicago's O'Hare Airport.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ ``Amtrak could go bankrupt next year,'' Railway Gazette 
International, August 1997, p. 497.
    \74\ R.C. Acharya, ``Cashing in on cultural heritage,'' Rail 
Business Report 1997, pp. 32-33.
    \75\ A more thorough treatment of future railroad-airline roles can 
be found in Vranich, Derailed, ``Who Will Run Tomorrow's Trains?'' 
Chapter Six.
    \76\ ``It's a Plane!'' Dow Jones, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tour Companies.--Holland America Westours and Princess Tours run 
special coaches on the Alaska Railroad and contribute to the railroad's 
record-setting performance. Elsewhere, the Florida Fun Train is 
promoting itself as a tour and entertainment experience. A European 
operator, the Venice-Simplon Orient Express Ltd., seeks privatization 
opportunities worldwide. It operates a rail franchise in Britain, and 
in 1998 will help convert an Australian passenger train into a 
specialized service.\77\ Such developments reflect growth in the tour-
train market throughout the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ ``Queensland Rail,'' Railway Gazette International, August 
1997, p. 514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Restoring Distinctive Services.--For better or worse, customers in 
the pre-Amtrak era evaluated passenger trains in terms of particular 
attributes of service, schedules, menus, and the overall travel 
experience. The Pennsylvania Railroad's Broadway Limited was unlike 
Santa Fe's Super Chief, but those nuances were erased by Amtrak's 
homogeneous service. Airlines, tour companies, and bus operators, which 
are practiced at adapting to changes in the travel market, can add a 
new vitality to rail passenger service. Such private-sector operators 
can bring about an important intangible, and that is restoring 
distinctive characteristics to individual trains. That is particularly 
important when creating land-cruise train experiences.
                               conclusion
    Amtrak is an experiment that failed. Replacing Amtrak with other 
operators is a viable proposition--especially considering Amtrak's 
inordinate level of subsidies. Many nations are revolutionizing their 
rail services, and numerous models for the process are evident in 
diverse countries (see Appendix). With such experiences serving as a 
guide, the United States could phase out Amtrak yet retain services 
that meet legitimate travel needs. Done well, the process can eliminate 
a burden on federal taxpayers, create new opportunities for companies 
in the travel business, and diversify and improve the passenger trains 
that remain.

              Worldwide Examples of Railroad Privatization

    Mr. Poole. Troubled railroads are not unique to the United 
States. They are all over the world. But other countries have 
taken much more dramatic steps to fix their ailing rail 
systems, including passenger rail, than we have. During the 
past decade, as our study points out, nearly 50 countries have 
embarked on privatizing their national railroads, often with 
the help of the World Bank. These countries include Australia, 
Britain, Japan, New Zealand, and Sweden. There is a whole lot 
we can learn from these countries' experience, much of which is 
applicable to fixing or replacing Amtrak.
    British Rail is one case in point. This system now, which 
was losing a lot of money, has been completely privatized, 
broken up into 60 different companies. The track and stations 
became a company called RailTrack, which was sold off last year 
for $2.9 billion, something that might be able to be done with 
the Northeast corridor. Passenger service was divided into 25 
operating franchises, which were auctioned off competitively to 
those bidders who could provide the service with the least 
amount of subsidy, very much like what the Working Group 
recommended.
    So far the results are mostly positive. They have had one 
or two failures, but most of these are positive experiences.

                         Forms of Privatization

    Around the world, rail privatization has taken three main 
forms. Some countries have sold off their entire national 
railroads, sometimes splitting them into several different 
companies, which is what Australia and Japan have done. Most 
European countries today are separating the track from the 
train operations and privatizing only the train operations, 
again usually through a competitive auction process. Most 
developing countries, on the other hand, are auctioning off 
long-term franchises under which the winning firm has to take 
over an entire line or set of lines and rebuild them, putting 
in major capital, sometimes up to billions of dollars, and also 
operate the train services.
    Now, in fixing Amtrak we could adopt parts of all three 
methods. First of all, any serious Amtrak restructuring ought 
to first seek proposals from investors to buy most or all of 
the entire system. Now, I frankly have doubts that any viable 
proposal would come forward to preserve the whole network 
because of the unviability of long-distance trains, but we 
should not prejudge the creativity of the private sector. If 
somebody would actually make a real proposal to take that on, 
we should certainly be open to it.
    If no buyer is willing to take over the whole thing, the 
most promising model would be to decentralize Amtrak's 
functions, focusing on commuter and regional service, where 
private bidders might be able to provide needed service for 
only modest subsidies, as is happening today in Britain. Routes 
much longer than 300 miles are simply not going to be viable 
for conventional rail service, given the low cost and 
convenience of our highly competitive and low-cost airline 
industry, which is not really the case in Europe.
    Another lesson from overseas is that the billions the 
taxpayers have already poured into Amtrak are a sunk cost. They 
are never going to be recovered and will have to be written 
off. This includes the $3.8 billion non-interest-bearing Amtrak 
note to the Federal Government that comes due in the year 2975, 
nearly 1,000 years from now. That is just going to be written 
off, we might as well face it.

                          Successor to Amtrak

    Now, our study set forth a 10-point plan for replacing 
Amtrak with sustainable passenger rail service drawing from 
this global experience. I do not have time to go through the 
whole thing, but let me just give you the highlights of that 
plan.
    First, we propose creating an Amtrak transition board to 
sell off Amtrak's assets and manage the transition to a 
decentralized regional passenger service.
    Senator Shelby. How would that work?
    Mr. Poole. That would be the legal successor to the Amtrak 
corporation. It would be a liquidation, but not with the idea 
of ending all service. It would be to transition to a new model 
in which the States and MPO's, the urban areas, take on the 
main responsibility.
    You would establish an Amtrak sunset date, which would 
later on be followed by a sunset date for the transition board 
itself. We would also include, complete the current 
modernization of the Northeast corridor to make it more 
saleable or more viable on its own, but cancel all other 
currently planned Amtrak capital spending.
    We would also preauthorize the creation of interstate 
compacts between any groups of States that may wish to operate 
or contract for regional rail service, including, of course, 
the States of the Northeast corridor. You would set declining 
annual caps for Federal operating subsidies for the regional 
services, which would decline to zero over a period of time, 
much like the Reform Act already does.
    Finally, you would create a post-Amtrak passenger rail 
employee category under Federal law, so that these successor 
operations at the regional and State level would be exempt from 
the Railway Labor Act, Railroad Retirement, Railroad 
Unemployment, and Federal Employer's Liability Act. Those 
changes, the deregulation of labor relations, would allow the 
States and private companies to enjoy the benefits of lower 
cost rail services in those markets under 300 miles where rail 
can be viable, commuter and short haul.
    Now, there is, as Senator Bennett mentioned, a small niche 
market for long distance, or I think maybe it was Senator 
Gorton, for long-distance trains, basically rail cruise 
operators, that is already beginning in the United States, 
exists in Canada and in Europe as well, even exists in 
Southeast Asia between Malaysia and Thailand, by the way. And 
there may be markets for some high-technology, high-speed rail 
in selected markets competing with airline service.
    We should encourage the private sector to come forward with 
proposals for maglev and other things under long-term franchise 
arrangements. But just as airline service in the United States 
is not subsidized, this potential competitor to airlines should 
not. It would be wrong to use taxpayers' money to subsidize a 
competing industry for a viable private airline industry that 
is not subsidized.
    Our view is that it is time to recognize that Amtrak as a 
national rail system has failed. But Amtrak can be replaced, we 
believe, with sustainable passenger rail service drawing on 
what has been done in 50 other countries.
    That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer 
questions at the appropriate time.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Poole. We have your complete 
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Robert W. Poole, Jr.
    My name is Robert W. Poole, Jr. I am president of the Reason 
Foundation, a public policy think tank based in Los Angeles. For over 
20 years my colleagues and I have been doing work on privatization of 
government functions. I authored the very first book on the subject in 
1980. The Reason Foundation's Privatization Center is this country's 
leading source of information on privatization. We publish a monthly 
newsletter on privatization as well as the definitive yearbook on the 
subject.
    Most of my own policy research over the past decade has been in the 
field of transportation. Worldwide, I have studied the major decade-
long trend of governments privatizing airlines, railroads, highways, 
truck freight, airports, seaports, and air traffic control. Here at 
home, I have studied the impact of deregulation of airlines, railroads, 
and trucking, as well as the privatization of Conrail. I have proposed 
models for privatizing airports and air traffic control, as well as 
bringing public-private partnerships to bear in the highway and urban 
transit sectors.
    Last year we decided to turn our attention to Amtrak. We were 
impressed by the dramatic restructuring and privatization of railroads 
going on all over the world--and at how little that body of experience 
was affecting the debate over Amtrak's future. It so happened that a 
long-time rail passenger advocate named Joseph Vranich was thinking 
along parallel lines, and was completing a book on Amtrak. We liked his 
approach and commissioned Vranich to develop a policy paper for us. It 
was published last October under the title, ``Replacing Amtrak: A 
Blueprint for Sustainable Passenger Rail Service.'' \1\ My testimony 
today is based largely on that policy paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Joseph Vranich, ``Replacing Amtrak: A Blueprint for Sustainable 
Passenger Rail Service,'' Policy Study No. 235, Los Angeles: Reason 
Public Policy Institute, October 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 global rail privatization experiences
    One of the more recent global privatization trends is the movement 
to privatize troubled state-owned railroads. Virtually unthinkable a 
decade ago, this trend has now spread to nearly 50 countries, as 
summarized in Table 1. The World Bank is aggressively promoting rail 
privatization, as critical to improving the transportation 
infrastructure of developing countries. But it is drawing on detailed 
case-study examples not merely from such developing countries as 
Argentina but also from such Western countries as Japan, New Zealand, 
Sweden, and the United Kingdom.\2\ For the fact is, as daunting as 
Amtrak's problems appear to be at close range, they appear more modest 
when contrasted with the hundreds of billions of losses accumulated by 
Japan National Railways or the severe deterioration of rail service 
experienced in much of Latin America and Africa prior to privatization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Ron Kopicki and Louis S. Thompson, Best Methods of Railway 
Restructuring and Privatization, Washington, DC: The World Bank 
Cofinancing and Financial Advisory Services (Privatization Group), 
August 1995.

                                TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF RAIL PRIVATIZATION WORLDWIDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Private                 Privatization
                                   Franchise    Public to     Private       funds       Devolve       planning
             Country               to private    private      funds in    raised in    service to    underway,
                                      rail     fixed asset    new rail      stock      States or       plans
                                   operators     transfer    facilities    offering     regions      incomplete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina \1\...................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........            X  .............
Australia \1\...................            X            X            X  ...........  ...........  .............
Austria.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........            X  .............
Bolivia.........................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Brazil \1\......................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Cameroon........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Canada..........................            X            X  ...........            X  ...........  .............
Chile \1\.......................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
China...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........            X  ...........  .............
Colombia \1\....................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Congo...........................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Costa Rica \1\..................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Czech Rep.......................  ...........            X  ...........  ...........            X  .............
Ecuador.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Estonia.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
France..........................  ...........  ...........            X            X  ...........  .............
Gabon...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Germany.........................  ...........  ...........            X  ...........            X  .............
Great Britain \1\...............            X  ...........            X            X  ...........  .............
Guatemala \1\...................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
India...........................            X  ...........            X  ...........  ...........  .............
Israel..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Ivory Coast.....................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Jordan..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Japan...........................  ...........            X            X            X            X  .............
Latvia..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Lithuania.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Malawi..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Malaysia........................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Mexico \1\......................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Mozambique \1\..................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Netherlands.....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
New Zealand \1\.................            X  ...........  ...........            X  ...........  .............
Pakistan........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Panama \1\......................            X  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .............
Paraguay........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Peru \1\........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Portugal........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Russia..........................  ...........            X            X            X            X  .............
Slovakia........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
South Africa....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Taiwan..........................            X  ...........            X  ...........  ...........  .............
Togo............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........            X             X
Uruguay.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Venezuela.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Vietnam.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Zambia..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........             X
Zimbabwe........................  ...........  ...........            X  ...........  ...........  .............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ Privatization activity involving U.S. railroads or rail consulting firms.

    Let me just sketch out what a few other countries have done to 
stanch the bleeding of their rail systems, using a variety of 
privatization techniques. There is a great deal we can learn, and much 
that we can apply to restructuring--or better, replacing--Amtrak.
    One of the most dramatic cases is the privatization of British 
Rail, the final stage of which was completed last spring. This money-
losing state monopoly system was broken up into 60 different companies. 
The track and stations became the infrastructure company, Railtrack, 
which was sold via stock offering for $2.9 billion. Passenger rail 
service was carved up into 25 different operating franchises, which 
were auctioned off to those bidders who could provide the specified 
level of service for the least amount of subsidy. So far, the results 
are largely positive: much planned new investment, better on-time 
performance, and innovative new kinds of service from providers such as 
Virgin Trains and National Express.
    While British Rail had been losing money, at least it had been 
providing tolerable service. That was not the case in Argentina, where 
large fractions of the huge railroad work force showed up only to 
collect their paychecks, and where some rail lines were so decrepit 
that trains derailed at 5 mph. With assistance from the World Bank, 
Argentina divided the system into six long-term (30-year) franchises or 
concessions for freight operations, which were put out to bid. Winning 
bidders had to commit to a specified investment program and to the 
payment of concession fees. A similar process was used to franchise 
Buenos Aires commuter and subway service, but in this case on the basis 
of the least subsidy required. Except for one high-density, 325-mile 
route, long-distance inter-city passenger service was discontinued, 
because of its huge losses. The World Bank reports major improvements 
in both freight and passenger services thanks to privatization.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Louis S. Thompson and Karim-Jacques Budin, ``Global Trend to 
Railway Concessions Delivering Positive Results,'' Private Sector 
(World Bank), December 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A third example is New Zealand. Its greatly over-staffed and money-
losing railroad was first corporatized--converted into a commercial 
corporation required to operate without subsidy, make a profit, and pay 
taxes. Over a 10-year period of drastic restructuring, NZ Rail became a 
productive and profitable business, which was then auctioned to a 
consortium of private firms. Under private ownership, it has become 
even more efficient, carrying both freight and passengers in open 
competition with auto, truck, and air service.
                        rail privatization modes
    The three examples cited above represent the three main modes of 
railroad privatization that have emerged to date. Some countries are 
choosing to divest an entire national railroad enterprise to the 
private sector, as a single integrated business. Others are separating 
the infrastructure (track and stations) from train operations and 
applying privatization either to one or both components. And still 
others are using long-term franchises or concessions to attract serious 
private-sector investment in rebuilding and modernization. Each may 
have applicability to our situation with Amtrak.
Divestiture
    Outright sale of the entire state railway system is relatively 
uncommon thus far, despite some very successful cases. Besides New 
Zealand, other practitioners include Australia, Japan, and Canada.
  --Australia last year sold off the Australian National Railroad in 
        three pieces: Tasrail (Tasmanian freight), South Australian 
        Rail (all other freight), and Passengers (which includes 
        various long-distance ``name'' trains). None will be 
        subsidized, except for modest per-ticket subsidies for senior 
        citizens.
  --Japan split up Japan National Railway into six integrated companies 
        and has thus far sold off JR East, JR Central, and JR West. 
        Those three are now profitable, while the three rural lines are 
        still in government hands, and still receiving (lower amounts 
        of) subsidy. However, the price of privatization was for the 
        government to take over responsibility for JNR's accumulated 
        debt of $350 billion, which it hoped to pay off via 
        privatization proceeds and sale of railroad real estate. Thus 
        far, however, much of that debt remains outstanding.
  --Canada sold off Canadian National Railway in 1995 for $2.1 billion, 
        leading to major gains in productivity for this freight 
        railroad. Its experience appears to parallel that of Conrail, 
        the successfully privatized U.S. freight railroad.
Separation of Track and Trains
    Increasingly, European railway systems are splitting infrastructure 
from train operations. In the U.K., of course, the infrastructure 
itself has been privatized via a stock offering, but in most other 
countries, the government plans to retain the infrastructure but 
privatize train operations. This is the announced plan in Denmark, 
Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden--as well as in Chile and 
Israel. But there are many variations. Sweden permits new private 
passenger rail firms to operate on its tracks in competition with the 
commercialized state train-operating company. And Chile last year 
decided that instead of retaining the infrastructure in government 
ownership, it would follow Britain's lead and privatize the track as 
well.
    Regardless of who owns the infrastructure, the major gains in this 
model come from competitively bidding out the train-operations 
contracts or franchises. In general, the more capital investment 
expected of the private operators (e.g., in totally new trains, or 
possibly even in sharing the cost of upgrading the track), the longer 
the term of the contract or franchise must be, to permit recovery of 
the company's investment.
Long-Term Franchises
    The third model is being used primarily in developing countries, as 
typified by Argentina. A long-term franchise is typically offered on a 
competitive basis, for a major line or group of lines. Where the 
service is likely to be profitable to operate, the winning bidder is 
typically selected on the basis of how much it is willing to offer for 
the franchise (consistent with agreeing to government-specified 
modernization investments). For services likely to remain unprofitable 
(such as long-distance passenger service), governments either make a 
policy decision to discontinue such service or accept competitive bids 
based on which company requires the least amount of subsidy to provide 
the specified level of service.
    Mexico typifies the former. Last year it auctioned off 50-year 
franchises for its Northeast line ($1.4 billion) and its Northwest 
Pacific line ($396 million), both of which are freight operations. A 
good example of the latter is Britain, where the largely passenger-
oriented rail service has been divided into 25 different operating 
franchises, whose lengths vary depending on how much capital investment 
the winning bidder must make. In most cases, the annual subsidies are 
scheduled to decline each year, and for some of the more highly 
traveled lines the subsidies are to be replaced with payments from the 
operating company to the government in the latter years of its 
franchise.
           applying global experience to amtrak restructuring
    Which of these privatization models provides useful lessons for 
Amtrak? I suggest that we can learn something from each of them.
    Divestiture of the entire Amtrak system to a private bidder as a 
single company is unlikely to be feasible, though Congress should not 
reject this possibility out of hand. A first step in any major 
restructuring or replacement of Amtrak as a loss-making government 
entity ought to be the solicitation of serious proposals from the 
private sector to take over much or all of the entire intercity system. 
But given the much longer distances between U.S. cities compared with 
Europe (and the enormous subsidies given to European rail systems), I 
have serious doubts that the present Amtrak system could be preserved 
on a for-profit basis.
    The long-term franchise model is equally problematic for long-
distance inter-city routes. Traffic is simply too ``thin'' and the 
cities too far apart to support a reasonable level of passenger service 
that is far more economically served by air, bus, and automobile. The 
one possible niche for long-term private franchises might be high-speed 
rail in selected high-density corridors of up to 300 miles--routes 
where 200 mph trains might prove competitive with air and road 
alternatives. But those would and should be individual projects serving 
localized niche markets; there is no reason to try to fit them into an 
integrated national network.
    The most promising privatization model for U.S. passenger service 
is competitive contracting for commuter and regional (conventional) 
rail service. There are perhaps a dozen city-pairs in this country 
where the level of subsidy for such service might be relatively modest, 
especially under the strong cost-reducing incentives of competitive 
bidding--and if such service were freed from Amtrak's restrictive labor 
conditions and traditional railroad liability and retirement programs. 
But since such service would be a matter of local and/or regional 
interest, it is an issue for decision-making and funding at those 
levels of government rather than at the federal level.
    One other lesson emerges from rail privatization and restructuring 
worldwide. Much of what governments previously ``invested'' in railways 
turns out to have been a bad investment. It is a sunk cost that will 
never be recovered. U.S. examples include Amtrak's $1.1 billion non-
interest-bearing note that matures in 2082 and another $3.8 billion in 
non-interest-bearing debt that Amtrak theoretically owes the government 
in the year 2975--nearly 10 centuries from now. These debts will simply 
have to be written off as uncollectible, as have many such railroad 
debts in other countries.
                        amtrak replacement plan
    In his Reason Foundation study, Vranich set forth the outline of a 
plan to replace Amtrak with sustainable passenger rail service, drawing 
from the experience of nearly 50 other countries. The basic concept is 
an orderly liquidation of the current Amtrak corporate entity, to be 
replaced mostly by competitively contracted regional and commuter rail 
services overseen and subsidized by cities, states, or entities created 
by interstate compacts. These services would be operated in a 
deregulated labor environment, so as to minimize the amount of subsidy 
required.
    More specifically, Vranich's proposed Amtrak Denationalization Act 
would include the following elements:
    1. The Act would be the legal substitute for the Rail Passenger 
Service Act which created Amtrak.
    2. It would repeal the Swift Rail Development Act and the Next 
Generation High-Speed Rail section of ISTEA, leaving high-speed rail to 
independent private or public-private ventures.
    3. It would create an Amtrak Transition Board to divest Amtrak 
assets and manage the transition to regionalized service; the ATB would 
be insulated from political interference in a manner similar to that 
used for military base-closing commissions.
    4. It would designate the ATB as Amtrak's successor agency, 
assuming Amtrak's legal liabilities.
    5. It would establish an Amtrak sunset date, to be followed by an 
ATB sunset date several years later.
    6. It would continue the capital funding to finish modernization of 
the Northeast Corridor, to make it more viable on a stand-alone basis.
    7. It would impose a moratorium on all other Amtrak capital funding 
and seek to cancel existing orders for locomotives, rolling stock, and 
other equipment.
    8. It would set declining caps on operating subsidies for the 
successor, regional services, declining to zero after a period of 
years.
    9. It would pre-authorize the creation of any and all interstate 
compacts which states may wish to form to operate regional passenger 
rail service, including one composed of the eight northeastern states 
and the District of Columbia for Northeast Corridor service.
    10. It would establish a ``post-Amtrak passenger-rail employee'' 
category of worker who is exempt from the Railway Labor Act, Federal 
Employers' Liability Act, Railroad Retirement Act, and Railroad 
Unemployment Insurance Act. Such employees would be covered instead by 
Social Security and ordinary unemployment and workers compensation 
acts.
    This kind of program would permit states to enjoy the benefits of 
competitively contracted local and regional passenger rail services in 
those markets where such services are in high demand--commuter service 
and selected short-haul intercity service. Besides permitting the 
continuation of these conventional services on a lower-cost basis, this 
program would also permit the emergence of two additional forms of 
passenger service: land cruises and high-tech, high-speed rail.
    There is a market for long-distance trains. The target audience is 
tourists and vacationers willing to pay the price for ``sentimental 
rail journeys'' operated by niche market ``land cruise'' operators. 
Among the operators in business today to serve this market are the 
American Orient Express and Montana Daylight, as well as Great Canadian 
Railtours' ``Rocky Mountaineer.'' In a post-Amtrak United States, these 
and similar land-cruise companies would have to negotiate operating 
agreements with the freight railroads directly, rather than making use 
of Amtrak's authority to operate over those railroads' track. But since 
land cruises do not have to meet the kind of precise schedule 
constraints of traditional long-distance passenger trains, and operate 
far less frequently than regularly scheduled passenger trains, the 
freight railroads are more likely to be able to negotiate mutually 
acceptable operating agreements with them.
    High-tech, high-speed passenger rail--ranging from the Japanese 
bullet trains and French TGV up to the prototype German and Japanese 
maglev trains--are an entirely different proposition. Their high speed 
operations require separate infrastructure not shared with freight 
railroads. To the extent that viable market opportunities for such 
services exist, they are best pursued as individual private or public-
private ventures, each tailored to the market it seeks to serve and 
competing mostly with air service in that market. Their future depends 
primarily on technology and economics and is not at all jeopardized by 
the proposed liquidation of Amtrak. Since airlines are by-and-large not 
subsidized by American taxpayers, neither should high-tech rail systems 
be subsidized by our taxpayers.
    This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 
questions you many have.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY R. LADD, CHAIRMAN, METRA COMMUTER 
            RAIL
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Ladd.
    Mr. Ladd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
subcommittee.
    I am Jeff Ladd and I have had the privilege of serving as 
Metra chairman since 1984. Now, that was the first full year 
that Metra became responsible for all of the commuter train 
traffic in the six-county northeastern portion of Illinois. In 
my tenure, I have seen a steady and unfocused commuter rail 
structure became a sure-footed single-minded system. The 
managers of Amtrak are engaged in a similar effort on a much 
broader scale, and I can certainly empathize with them and I 
admire their persistence against the difficulties that make 
what we have faced seem minor by comparison.
    It is in this context of respect, in fact, that I offer my 
views on passenger railroading as we practice it back in 
northeastern Illinois. We agree with Amtrak's business 
approach, or at least nominal approach. We agree that public 
transportation can and should be operated on private sector 
principles. These include cost control on the one hand and 
revenue enhancement on the other. Above all, we agree that the 
key to both is adequate capital funding.

                         Comparisons With Metra

    I congratulate Amtrak's managers on their dedication to 
better business practices that have produced gains in both 
ridership and passenger revenues and put Amtrak at the 
threshold of its first $1 billion year. Anything I say here 
today to win support for Amtrak's cause I say gladly, because 
support for Amtrak's approach is support for Metra as well.
    Anything I say about Metra that may be useful to Amtrak I 
do not say boastfully. While we both believe that in certain 
corridors the railway is the right way, Metra has faced far 
fewer restrictions in pursuing that belief. While we share 
certain commonalities, we are different in many respects, as 
will be clear from my review of Metra's business practices. 
This is by no means an apples-to-apples comparison.
    A thumbnail sketch of Metra may help to understand that. 
Metra is the commuter rail service arm of the Regional 
Transportation Authority. The Illinois State Legislature 
brought us into being in late 1983 with an amendment to the 
legislation that had created the RTA in 1974. Other RTA service 
arms are the Chicago Transit Authority and PACE, which is a 
suburban bus agency.
    Metra, however, is not just a suburban commuter carrier. 
Thirty percent of our 228 stations lie within the Chicago city 
limits. We are truly a regional passenger railroad. We connect 
a dynamic city core with fast-growing suburban and reviving 
urban communities. Our service territory is rapidly becoming a 
six-county megalopolis.
    Our trains run on 12 main and 4 branch lines, totaling more 
than 500 total route miles, and we operate more than 700 trains 
each weekday and hundreds more on weekends. Last year we 
provided 75.2 million passenger trips, the most in Metra's 
history and the most for northeast Illinois commuter trains in 
any year since 1980. That translates into well over 1.6 billion 
passenger-miles, which is the mark of a true regional carrier.
    Contributing to those results was the first full year of 
operation for our North Central Service, Chicago's first new 
commuter rail line in 70 years, and ridership greatly exceeded 
expectations. Other factors included a strong economy and 
resurgent employment in downtown Chicago, our main market, 
along with growth in nontraditional city to suburb and suburb 
to suburb travel. In addition, there was a spurt in offpeak, 
non-work-related travel, especially on weekends. We pursued all 
opportunities with aggressive niche marketing that recognizes 
especially the growth in nontraditional elements of our 
ridership.
    Above all, we attribute our gains to our safe, clean, and 
reliable service. Last year we operated more than 200,000 
trains without injury to a single passenger and with average 
ontime performance of just over 97 percent.

                            Metra's Success

    Just as Congress told Amtrak that it wanted a national 
system run like a business, the Illinois legislature told us it 
wanted a regional system run like a business, and that is 
exactly what they got.
    But we could not have done that and we cannot keep doing it 
without your help. Metra's success is predicated on four 
essential elements and, much like a four-legged stool, if we 
lose one leg we lose our balance. The four elements are Federal 
support, organized labor, freight railroads, and our customers.
    While Federal operating subsidies account for very little 
in our annual budgets, Federal capital grants account for a 
lot. Like Amtrak, we fervently believe that the better you 
capitalize the less you subsidize, and we hope the results of 
our strategic capital investments will continue to demonstrate 
our worthiness for Federal funding. That investment has totaled 
over $2 billion since 1984 and has resulted in a rebuilding of 
Chicago's regional rail lines into a system that has achieved a 
greatly improved level of physical well-being and the best 
service quality in the country.
    We continue, however, to reclaim and modernize our aging 
infrastructure. A major example is our ongoing bridge renewal 
program. This alone accounts for 21 percent of this year's 
capital budget. We have over 796 bridges in our system and this 
program addresses some 91 bridges identified in a 1989 
assessment as critical or badly needing repair after 90 years 
of service.
    At the same time, we continue the ongoing rehabilitation of 
our car and locomotive fleets. A number of our coaches date 
back to the early fifties. Through this effort of regular 
maintenance and rehabilitation, we are able to keep our rolling 
stock in service for 50 years or more. About 71 percent of our 
5-year projection covers further improvements of existing 
rolling stock and infrastructure.
    The rest embraces a proposed expansion project, including 
double track capacity for the North Central service, extension 
of our current Union Pacific West Line service, and extension 
of our current Southwest service. Along all three segments of 
this project we see strong demand and solid support from 
communities.
    The price tag on this year's capital program is $147.5 
million and we anticipate that 60 percent of that will come 
from the Federal Transit Administration.
    Briefly to sum up, let me talk about labor. Unless labor 
agrees with us about the efficiencies we bring to our system, 
we will not accomplish our objectives. To do that, we have to 
understand what they want out of the system, what we need out 
of the system, and work closely with them. We formed the first 
labor-management relations committee in commuter rail history. 
It is still ongoing, and we have created a wonderful working 
relationship. Our contracts are now 5 years in duration and we 
are hopeful that the next time around they will be 7 years in 
duration. That does not happen without labor peace.
    Freight railroads. We run almost all of our service over 
freight railroads, two of them the busiest in the country, 
Union Pacific West Line and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe, 
and we have some of the best ontime performance. How do we get 
their attention? Because our investments are meant to create 
coexistence. They benefit Metra and they benefit freight 
railroad, and when you do that you get their attention and you 
run an ontime reliable service.
    Finally, our customers. We survey our customers every 2 
years to know what they want, when they want it, what are the 
attributes they want to assign to our service. And we 
continually fine-tune our operations to make sure we are 
providing them what they want.
    Mr. Chairman, in summary, that is what we wanted to say 
today. If I can answer any questions for you or members of the 
committee, I would be delighted.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Ladd, thank you. We have your complete 
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Jeffrey R. Ladd
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this 
opportunity to talk about the business of moving people by rail.
    I'm Jeff Ladd and I've had the privilege of serving as chairman of 
Metra since 1984. That was the first full year that Metra became 
responsible for all commuter train service in our six-county region.
    In my tenure, I've seen an unsteady and unfocused commuter rail 
structure become a sure-footed, single-minded system.
    The managers of Amtrak are engaged in a similar effort on a much 
broader scale. I can certainly empathize with them. I admire their 
persistence against difficulties that make what we have faced seem 
minor by comparison.
    It is in this context of respect, in fact, that I offer my views on 
passenger railroading as we practice it back in northeast Illinois. We 
agree with Amtrak's business approach. We agree that public 
transportation can and should be operated on private-sector principles. 
These include cost control on the one hand and revenue enhancement on 
the other. Above all, we agree that the key to both is adequate capital 
funding.
    I congratulate Amtrak's managers on their dedication to better 
business practices that have produced gains in both ridership and 
passenger revenues and put Amtrak at the threshold of its first $1 
billion year.
    Anything I say here today to win support for Amtrak's cause, I say 
gladly--because support for Amtrak's approach is support for Metra as 
well.
    Anything I say about Metra that may be useful to Amtrak, I do not 
say boastfully. While we both believe that in certain corridors the 
railway is the right way, Metra has faced far fewer restrictions in 
pursing that belief. While we share certain commonalities, we're 
different in many respects, as will be clear from my review of Metra's 
business practices. This is by no means an apples-to-apples comparison.
    A thumbnail sketch of Metra may help to understand that.
    Metra is the commuter rail service arm of the Regional 
Transportation Authority. The Illinois State Legislature brought us 
into being in late 1983 with an amendment to the legislation that had 
created the RTA in 1974. Other RTA service arms include the Chicago 
Transit Authority and Pace, the suburban bus agency.
    Metra, however, is not just a suburban commuter carrier. Thirty 
percent of our 228 stations lie within the Chicago city limits. We are 
truly a regional passenger railroad. We connect a dynamic city core 
with fast-growing suburban and reviving urban communities. Our service 
territory is fast becoming a six-county megalopolis.
    Our trains run on 12 main and four branch lines totaling more than 
500 total route miles. We operate more than 700 trains each weekday and 
hundreds more on weekends. Last year, we provided 75.2 million 
passenger trips--the most in Metra's history and the most for Northeast 
Illinois commuter trains in any year since 1980. That translates into 
well over 1.6 billion passenger miles, which is the mark of a true 
regional carrier.
    Contributing to those results was the first full year of operation 
for our North Central Service, Chicago's first new commuter rail line 
in 70 years. Ridership greatly exceeded expectations.
    Other factors included a strong economy and resurgent employment in 
downtown Chicago--our main market--along with growth in non-
traditional, city-to-suburb and suburb-to-suburb travel. In addition, 
there was a spurt in off-peak, non-work-related travel, especially on 
weekends. We pursued all opportunities with aggressive ``niche'' 
marketing that recognizes especially the growth in the non-traditional 
elements of our ridership.
    Above all, we attribute our gains to our safe, clean and reliable 
service. Last year, we operated more than 200,000 trains without injury 
to a single passenger and with average on-time performance of just over 
97 percent.
    Just as Congress told Amtrak that it wanted a national system run 
like a business, the Illinois legislature told us that it wanted a 
regional system run like a business. That's exactly what they got. But 
we couldn't have done that and we can't keep doing it without 
Congress's help.
    Metra's success is predicated on four essential elements and, much 
like a four-legged stool, if we lose one leg, we lose our balance. The 
four elements are federal support, organized labor, freight railroads, 
and our customers.
    While federal operating subsidies account for very little in our 
annual budgets, federal capital grants account for a lot. Like Amtrak, 
we fervently believe that the better you capitalize, the less you 
subsidize. We hope the results of our strategic capital investments 
will continue to demonstrate our worthiness for federal funding.
    That investment has totaled over $2 billion since 1984 and has 
resulted in a rebuilding of Chicago's regional rail lines into a system 
that has achieved a greatly improved level of physical well-being and 
the best service quality in the country.
    We continue, however, to reclaim and modernize our aging 
infrastructure. A major example is our ongoing bridge renewal program. 
This alone accounts for 21 percent of this year's capital budget. We 
have over 796 bridges in our system and this program addresses some 91 
bridges identified in a 1989 assessment as critically or badly needing 
repair after 90 years of service.
    At the same time, we will continue the ongoing rehabilitation of 
our car and locomotive fleets. A number of our coaches date back to the 
early 1960's. Through this effort of regular maintenance and 
rehabilitation, we are able to keep our rolling stock in service for 50 
years or more.
    About 71 percent of our five-year projection covers further 
improvements of existing rolling stock and infrastructure. A 
preventative maintenance mentality dominates a portion of our capital 
planning. Many of our capital planners are railroaders who remember how 
deferred maintenance led segments of Chicago commuter service to the 
brink of collapse.
    The rest embraces a proposed expansion project including double 
track capacity for the North Central Service, extension of our current 
Union Pacific-West line service, and extension of our current SouthWest 
service.
    Along all three segments of this project, we see strong demand and 
solid support from communities. Some local governments already are 
acquiring land for stations and parking. And we have the full support 
of the entire Congressional delegation from northeastern Illinois. In 
addition, we are planning yet another ambitious work season for general 
track and signal improvements, and we will upgrade the last of our key 
maintenance facilities.
    The price tag on this year's capital program is $147.5 million. We 
anticipate that 60 percent of that will come from the Federal Transit 
Administration. Other sources include the Illinois Department of 
Transportation, 9 percent, and the Regional Transportation Authority, 6 
percent.
    The balance will come from two sources within Metra. One is a five 
percent fare increase that took effect in 1989, with all proceeds 
pledged to capital improvements. Moreover, as we provide more and 
longer passenger trips, we generate additional revenue for 
improvements.
    The other form of Metra-generated capital funds represents the 
surplus in our annual RTA operating subsidy that comes from transit-
designated proceeds of a six-county sales tax. We are allowed to use 
anything we can save from our budgeted subsidy each year for capital 
projects. These ``plowback'' funds have made a sizable contribution to 
our improvement programs. Obviously, this is an extra incentive to 
control operating costs.
    It is noteworthy that we are required by Illinois law to cover 55 
percent of any operating costs from revenues. Here, of course, you see 
a major difference. Amtrak is expected to reach a much higher ratio. 
While we always achieve a higher recovery ratio than required, we don't 
match Amtrak's performance.
    The great majority of our capital program is prioritized based on 
the ability of the investment to reduce operating costs. However, we 
can be properly but still not adequately capitalized, and therein lies 
our concern.
    Our future needs are enormous as we face calls for more and more 
service while we struggle to maintain and improve what we already 
operate. Our current budget document shows capital needs for the period 
1998 through 2002 of more than $1 billion. Despite the prospects for 
ISTEA reauthorization, we know we'll always face fierce competition in 
the annual appropriations race.
    A year ago, when we first asked for federal help for our expansion 
project, we said it deserved support because it demonstrated the wise 
use of existing resources in partnership with local governments. Our 
proposed expansion would occur along rail lines already in place in 
strong markets. That was the secret to the success of our North Central 
Service.
    This growth strategy further demonstrates Metra's business-like 
approach to passenger railroading. It shows how we strive to produce 
the greatest possible return on limited capital resources.
    Nevertheless, no matter how well you apply capital funds, you can't 
produce a great return unless you use improved assets in the most 
efficient manner. Here's where the labor unions and the freight 
railroads come in.
    First, the unions. Clearly, labor must support efficiency as much 
as management does. That can happen only when both sides respect each 
other and communicate freely and effectively about problems. We think 
we have that at Metra, where we operate under 19 separate labor 
agreements, most of which are five years in duration.
    We have a labor-management committee that dates back to our early 
days. It was the first of its kind in the commuter rail industry. It 
was so successful that we kept it going after the federal seed money 
ran out. It remains the pride and joy of our internal initiatives.
    This committee does not get involved in collective bargaining, but 
it has set the stage for peaceful negotiations by creating the context 
for working together on a vast array of non-contractual issues. These 
include the safety, morale and education of our employees and the 
safety, reliability and efficiency of our operations.
    First and foremost among the committee's many accomplishments is 
our employee assistance program, the longest running management-labor 
offshoot. Employee assistance has grown far beyond its original focus 
on drug and alcohol addiction. Its latest refinement, a three-pronged 
employee service network, offers a range of counseling for many aspects 
of daily life beyond the workplace itself.
    Another offshoot is our safety task group that keeps devising new 
approaches to the single most daunting challenge of railroad 
operations, injury prevention. The latest development is a safety-
captain program that speeds up the reporting and handling of workplace 
hazards. It is this kind of cooperative effort that has allowed Metra 
to win six Harriman awards for safety--the first commuter railroad to 
ever win even one.
    A counterpart to the safety task force is our inter-active 
management group, which focuses on other workplace issues. It's a 
modern-day version of the traditional employee suggestion system.
    Then there's our work force education group, which has spawned an 
exciting new apprentice program for skilled crafts persons. We think 
this program will be a trend-setter for the commuter rail industry.
    Beyond these specific initiatives, the committee's main achievement 
is the prevailing atmosphere of open, frank discussion. We're counting 
on it in negotiations that are under way for new contracts that will 
take effect next year.
    We are greatly impressed by Amtrak's recent success in gaining work 
rule changes to increase productivity with the Brotherhood of 
Maintenance of Way Employees. We hope that agreement will indeed set 
the pattern for Amtrak's negotiations with other unions.
    Equally daunting can be the negotiations with the freight carriers. 
We have found that such relations are definitely smoother if a railroad 
has a tradition of passenger service. But the bottom line is there must 
be something in it for the freight carrier, too. The trick is to make 
commuter capital investments pay dividends for freight operations as 
well.
    That principle underlies our relationships with seven freight 
railroads, as Chicago continues to demonstrate its stature as the rail 
hub of North America. Only one of our main lines enjoys complete 
freedom from freight operations. Freight trains share and cross all of 
our other routes.
    Our two routes with the most freight traffic belong to the largest 
freight carriers in the United States. They are the Burlington Northern 
Santa Fe and the Union Pacific, which provide Metra commuter service 
under contract. Their crews move our trains over their tracks 
controlled by their dispatchers. The single BNSF route handles the most 
weekday commuter trains of any line, along with up to 50 freight 
trains. On one of three UP lines used by Metra, we see up to 70 
freights a day.
    These two railroads account for 39 percent of our weekday trains 
and nearly 50 percent of our ridership. Their dependability is 
outstanding and far exceeds that of some other railroads that carry far 
fewer of our trains. They are excellent partners, but both carriers 
have long histories of dedication to commuter operations. That includes 
innovations in operations and equipment design that contributed to the 
survival of Chicago's commuter service long before the Regional 
Transportation Authority was created.
    Metra's own crews operate our trains on other routes that we own, 
lease or use through trackage rights. In addition, we partially 
subsidize service provided by the State of Indiana. In all cases, we 
are partners in planning and funding track, signal, bridge and 
communications improvements designed to improve our co-existence. This 
is true even where our relationship is limited to a route intersection.
    More and more, it seems, freight trains crossing our routes affect 
our service more than those that share them. That's true especially on 
the south side of Chicago, which boasts the greatest collection of 
freight yards of any urban center. There, we are engaged in a massive 
analysis of ten commuter/freight intersections--all under the control 
of the freight carriers.
    With the full cooperation of the freight railroads, this study will 
tell us how operating practices and the signal systems, track capacity 
and layout affect our commuter service. We'll look for solutions that 
may combine track, signal and operating improvements that will benefit 
commuter and freight operations.
    The customer is the fourth leg of our stool. While a railroader's 
mentality permeates our capital planning, our labor-management 
dialogue, and our discussions with freight carriers, we don't run 
trains just for the sake of running trains. We are in the business of 
moving people, not trains. We know that if we don't provide 
satisfactory service to our customers, we won't have reason to run 
these trains.
    Safe, clean, convenient and, above all, reliable transportation is 
our objective. All capital decisions support that objective, as do our 
discussions with labor unions and freight railroads.
    So do the massive on-board customer surveys that we carry out every 
two years. In general, they let us know how we're doing and alert us to 
trends. Specifically, they're designed to help us rank in great detail 
the satisfaction levels for many Metra service attributes.
    These surveys are tools for evaluating service and weighing 
adjustments route by route, and, of course, for identifying problems. A 
more immediate means of identifying problems is the telephone. Our 
executive director, our deputy executive director, and the heads of 
departments including operations, transportation, mechanical, marketing 
and media relations and myself often take calls directly from riders, 
in addition to calls handled by our passenger service staff. Every 
letter from our customers receives a written response. Moreover, a 
majority of the Metra Board uses our service.
    We also communicate with customers and potential customers through 
research, promotions, market development, and direct marketing 
campaigns. Our main marketing objective in 1998 is to continue to build 
awareness of Metra as an alternative to the automobile and to increase 
ridership among a very broad base of prospects.
    We want to continue to reinforce with our current users the notion 
that to ride Metra is a smart buying decision. In addition, we want to 
build on a cost-efficient direct marketing and database program by 
maintaining an on-going dialogue with prospective riders. Another 
objective is to take greater advantage of opportunities for reverse, 
suburb-to-suburb, and recreational commuting, to utilize better our 
capacity. In other words, we're constantly looking for ways to maximize 
our potential in the marketplace. In this, we agree with Amtrak.
    As George Warrington said two weeks ago in House Appropriations 
Committee testimony, we have to better understand all the forces that 
affect our market. As he put it, ``It is not enough to know who our 
customers are, rather we need to know where they want to go, what we 
need to do to get them there, and how we can get them to buy our 
service again. We need to sense change and to react in a way that 
satisfies customer travel needs while strengthening the bottom line.''
    There you have it. The focus on the customer must dominate all of 
our daily discussions with freight carriers and labor unions and our 
decisions on capital spending.
    Again, the formula for success consists of four essential elements: 
satisfied customers; commuter/freight cooperative efforts to achieve 
reliable, convenient and safe service; sufficient capital investment to 
achieve that service; and labor/management relations that will allow 
both parties to prosper.
    And there you have my summary of how Metra goes about the business 
of regional passenger railroading.
    Let me close by repeating that I offer these observations knowing 
full well that Metra is but a microcosm of Amtrak. I don't presume to 
fully understand Amtrak's problems and to have all of the answers to 
them.
    In one respect, however, the problem is the same. That is the 
competition from the private automobile, fueled by governmental largess 
toward road building and gas guzzling vehicles.
    How well we meet the competition as a convenient transportation 
alternative and serve as a remedy for pollution and congestion will 
depend greatly on government policy toward our capital needs. We still 
have a long way to go.
    If my remarks have promoted the understanding of this key issue 
here today, I will have helped Metra as well as Amtrak.
    Thank you again for this opportunity. I'll be happy to answer any 
questions you may have about Metra's way of doing business.

                 Use of Operating and Capital Subsidies

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Kiley, I know you made an extraordinary 
effort to get here today and not only are you jet-lagged, you 
are going to be for a while because you have got to get back to 
New York, we understand. We thank you for your effort and your 
contribution.
    Having said that, Mr. Kiley, you were a member of the 
Working Group in Intercity Passenger Rail in 1997 and submitted 
a blue ribbon panel report as your written statement. In short, 
the blue ribbon panel recommended separating Amtrak's 
infrastructure management from its operations. The 
infrastructure company would continue to receive Federal 
support for capital needs, while the operating company could be 
contracted to the private sector with no Federal subsidy 
whatsoever.
    Mr. Kiley, do you think we can read the administration's 
request of asking only for capital dollars in the 1999 budget 
as a move in the same direction of the blue ribbon panel's 
recommendations, or how do you view that?
    Mr. Kiley. Well, the proof may be in the tasting of the 
pudding.
    Senator Shelby. Right. It always is, is it not.
    Mr. Kiley. If, in fact, capital dollars end up being 
diverted to maintenance expenditures that really do not extend 
the useful life of the properties being invested in, then 
fundamentally that will be a capital expense designed to 
provide an operating subsidy. So I would throw up an amber 
light on that and to be sure--I mean, maybe that is the 
direction in which we want to go, but it ought to be done 
consciously and overtly.
    I see a parallel here between what is essentially happening 
in the transit area with commuter railroads and with urban 
transit systems, where the operating subsidy essentially is 
provided by the user and by State and local governments. In all 
of my experience in the transit arena, I have never been an 
advocate of the continuation of operating subsidy. There may be 
exceptions in rural systems and in areas where ridership will 
just never be substantial that would argue to the contrary, but 
I just do not see it.
    I think the same is true of passenger rail, that if subsidy 
is needed it ought to be done as close to the operation as 
possible and the subsidy ought to be split among the users, 
local and State governments. We may be entering an era where 
interstate compacts make a lot of sense. It certainly makes 
sense in the Northeast corridor. It seems to me to make sense 
on the west coast, California, Oregon, Washington, perhaps even 
Nevada. It certainly makes sense in the upper Midwest and it 
may make sense increasingly in the Appalachian region.
    So I think we have just got to get away from the late 19th 
century way of looking at passenger rail.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Mr. Poole, we also appreciate, we appreciate all of you 
being here. We know you came from the west coast.
    Your national research and educational organization, The 
Reason Foundation, has published a report entitled ``Replacing 
Amtrak: A Blueprint for Sustainable Passenger Rail Service,'' 
which states: ``It is time to liquidate Amtrak, privatize and 
regionalize parts of it, permit alternative operators, and stop 
service on helpless routes.''
    Just how feasible is it to privatize Amtrak, Mr. Poole?

                      Feasibility of Privatization

    Mr. Poole. Well, I think if we had not had 48 countries now 
do all of the kinds of things we were talking about, I would 
say, well, this is very, very theoretical and it would be hard 
to justify taking a big leap into the dark. But we have a lot 
of experience now with all of the pieces that we have laid out 
there.
    We have seen the de facto liquidation of British Rail by 
breaking it up and selling off the pieces in those forms that 
are viable. We have seen the virtual end of subsidies in 
Australia and New Zealand, where they have sold off their rail 
systems to private operators. Even passenger rail is not being 
subsidized today in Australia and New Zealand, thanks to 
privatization and the willingness to do the kind of surgery on 
routes that just could never--that are hopeless, that could 
never be done--and the competitive contracting of routes of 
short to medium distances, up to 300 miles, that brings out the 
best in creativity from operators like Virgin Trains, the 
related company from Virgin Airlines, that is now investing 
hundreds of millions of dollars in new passenger rail service 
in Britain.
    There is a lot of creativity out there in the private 
sector. I think we are seeing it in other countries. We are 
seeing the transformation of the Argentine railways due to 
long-term private franchises investing in new trains and track. 
So I think there is a lot of evidence that says we can put 
those pieces together and replace Amtrak with a decentralized, 
privatized system. I do not think it is theoretical at all.

                     Structure of Privatized Amtrak

    Senator Shelby. Do you think it would work here? Do you 
think there would be private companies interested in bidding to 
run Amtrak's operations as they are currently structured, or do 
you envision a different structure?
    Mr. Poole. I have actually talked to one company off the 
record that told me they intend to come to the Congress this 
spring with a proposal to buy the entire national system. Now, 
I am very skeptical that that could be viable, but if they are 
there you certainly should listen to them. But I understand 
that Secretary Slater has received a letter 2 months ago from 
Guilford Transportation offering to buy the Northeast corridor, 
to engage in serious negotiation to buy the Northeast corridor.
    There is interest out there. There is also a company in 
Pennsylvania that has proposed to take over the operation of 
the Keystone Line between Harrisburg and Philadelphia. So we 
are seeing interest in the private sector out there in at least 
portions of the Amtrak system.
    Senator Shelby. And what do you say to those people who 
say, my gosh, we have got to have the status quo. What have we 
been doing? What do you say to those people?
    Mr. Poole. Well, I think it was Senator Gorton that said it 
and was correct. The analogy to oceangoing passenger travel, I 
think, is right on, that this is a 19th-century form. The long-
distance passenger trains are a nostalgic kind of thing from 
the past. There is a market there for cruises for people who 
are willing to pay for a leisurely, scenic journey, but they 
should not be asking the taxpayers of this country to subsidize 
them as a form of transportation.
    Mr. Kiley. Although the Titanic is making a lot of money.
    Mr. Poole. That is true, that is true. [Laughter.]
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Ladd, to just sum up here, your system 
carries almost four times as many passengers annually as 
Amtrak's national system. What does Metra do better than Amtrak 
in terms of your relationship with rail labor and with freight 
railroads in terms of developing new service?
    Mr. Ladd. Well, we have to run over freight railroads, 
Senator, to take those in reverse order. To do that we have to 
get their attention. There has to be something in it for them. 
And the way we do that is by using our capital program so we 
are at the same time improving their movement of freight that 
we are improving the movement of our commuters. By that in 
effect we get cooperation that leads to this coexistence.
    The labor thing is extremely important for us and, as I 
said, we had some Federal seed money when we first started and 
we created a labor-management committee. We did not use that to 
negotiate our contracts, but we did use it to discuss a whole 
lot of things of mutual interest where we were able to create a 
relationship and build trust over a period of time. We have 
kept that going. We have gotten into literacy programs for our 
employees, we have gotten into employee assistance and things 
way beyond that, where we have created a real relationship with 
our employees and the unions.
    At the same time, what is in it for the unions is, if we 
are successful, we are growing our employment needs, which 
means their union grows. As a result, our last form of 
contracts--and we have over 19 labor unions--were 5 years in 
duration, and we are hoping next time they are going to be 7.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         Alternatives to Amtrak

    I have unburdened myself of my general position on this and 
have no more pearls of wisdom to share. This has been a very 
interesting panel. I think the vision of the possible move in 
the direction of privatization is one that we clearly should 
pursue, and I thank the members of the panel for their 
thoughtfulness and their willingness to contribute to the 
debate.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton.
    Senator Gorton. Mr. Ladd, I grew up in Evanston a long time 
ago and I would like to sort of envisage what you have and 
impose it on what I saw as a youth. What is the longest single 
line from downtown Chicago that you would have? How far would 
it go, in what direction?
    Mr. Ladd. I think it is roughly 65 miles, Senator. That 
goes from downtown Chicago to Harvard, IL. That is the 
northwest line and it is probably about 10 miles south of Lake 
Geneva, WI.
    Senator Gorton. I understand that. And yours is six 
counties all in Illinois, I take it?
    Mr. Ladd. That is correct, sir.
    Senator Gorton. So you do not run anything into northwest 
Indiana or into Wisconsin?
    Mr. Ladd. We subsidize the Northwestern Indiana Commuter 
Transit District's line, the South Shore Line, which comes into 
Chicago, and they also then run a portion over our tracks.
    Senator Gorton. I see. So you can commute at least into 
Indiana?
    Mr. Ladd. Yes.
    Senator Gorton. And beyond the end of your line.
    Could a system like yours work, say, between Chicago and 
Milwaukee?
    Mr. Ladd. I think it could. At one point when the State of 
Illinois was looking at much increased rates from Amtrak for 
providing service in Illinois and to St. Louis, the Illinois 
Department of Transportation asked us whether or not we would 
consider providing that service if they were unable to reach an 
agreement with Amtrak. Any smart man understands the answer to 
that question is yes, and that was our response.
    We are not looking to expand that way, but if that is what 
would happen, yes, we could do that. We have got the rail 
people that can do that. We would need equipment and we would 
have to start building a relationship with a whole new set of 
railroads to upgrade the capital properties that you need to 
provide safe and reliable service. But we could do that, 
Senator, yes.
    Senator Gorton. Now, what is that--you said something. I 
take it independently of Metra is the old El, the CTA? Is that 
a separate organization from yours?
    Mr. Ladd. That is run by the Chicago Transit Authority, 
Senator.
    Senator Gorton. So that----
    Mr. Ladd. That is part of El Rapid Transit lines. That is 
all part of the CTA.
    Senator Gorton. So there are then two rail systems in 
greater Chicago?
    Mr. Ladd. We run a heavy rail system. It is akin to the old 
Chicago North Western, which was operating, I am sure, when you 
were in Evanston, now Union Pacific.

                       Railroad Competition Today

    Senator Gorton. All right. So if I were going out to 
Evanston I would still have the same two choices that my family 
had many years ago, the old El system run by CTA and one along 
the North Western tracks which is run by your Metra?
    Mr. Ladd. That is correct, sir.
    Senator Gorton. Thank you.
    Mr. Poole, has anyone actually drafted and introduced the 
bill that you outline in your testimony?
    Mr. Poole. Not to my knowledge, no. But we have certainly 
given the outline for what I think all the essential pieces 
would be. We do not really do legislative drafting. We would be 
happy--our author, Joseph Vranich, would certainly be happy to 
work with any staff that were interested in drafting such a 
bill.
    Senator Gorton. I take it it is in somewhat more detail 
than it is outlined in your written testimony?
    Mr. Poole. Yes, it is.
    Senator Gorton. Now, what you advocate really I take it is 
not competitive or an alternative to what Mr. Ladd is talking 
about, because you are not speaking of commuter rail even at 
the rather broad extent that he or Mr. Kiley talked about, I 
take it; is that right?
    Mr. Poole. Essentially, what I am saying is that Metra is 
the kind of organization we think that makes sense for 
passenger rail service of a commuter nature, and even 
potentially, as he just mentioned, it could also take on 
relatively short distance intercity routes such as Chicago to 
Milwaukee if there were no longer a Federal Amtrak Corporation.
    That is exactly the kind of model. We think the markets 
where rail makes sense are basically commuter and regional, 
short haul regional services, which are ideally suited to be 
done not as a Federal operation, but either with one State or 
by State or metropolitan area entities, either operating the 
services themselves or contracting with the private sector.
    Senator Gorton. Well, could you give me the kind of 
guesstimate I was asking the previous panel about, about other 
major city or urban pairs where you think the private sector 
might find intercity rail service to be reasonably attractive?
    Mr. Poole. On a totally unsubsidized basis, I doubt if 
there are any. But I think if there were a competitive 
contracting situation much like the Working Group proposed, 
under which you put the service out to bid for whoever could 
come up with the least--whoever would need the least subsidy to 
provide a given level of service, I think you would see real 
interest in corridors such as Seattle to Portland, Los Angeles-
San Diego, possibly Houston-Dallas, Chicago to Milwaukee, and a 
number of others around the country.
    Probably less than a dozen would be my guess, because it is 
a question of how much subsidy would be needed to provide a 
viable level of service.
    Senator Gorton. Where would that subsidy come from, from us 
here in Washington, DC, or from the communities and States that 
would be involved?
    Mr. Poole. From the communities and States that would be 
involved. We propose a phaseout down to zero of the Federal 
operating subsidies during the transition period, but with the 
idea that this is really not a national function. If there is 
only a handful of markets, up to a dozen possibly, where this 
kind of service makes any kind of sense, it is not really a 
Federal function. It is properly a State and regional function.
    Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Gorton.
    We thank you for coming. We thank you for your candor and 
participation.
    Mayor Rendell, he was going to be on our fourth panel, but 
he has a train to catch, which is fitting and proper for the 
mayor. Mayor, if you will come on up, we will take you first, 
and then we will go to Jack Lew, the Deputy Director of OMB.
    Mayor, your written statement will be made part of the 
record in its entirety. I know you are here to support Amtrak, 
and you may proceed with any comments you want to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. ED RENDELL, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF 
            PHILADELPHIA, PA
    Mayor Rendell. Thank you, Senator.
    Since the written statement is part of the record, I am 
just going to highlight it briefly.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely.

                       Benefits of Capitalization

    Mayor Rendell. Listening to the other panel, there are some 
points that I want to make. Senator, I know you are keenly 
aware that less than 4 months ago this Senate by unanimous 
consent on a bill sponsored by Senator Hutchison of Texas 
passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, which was 
contemplated to give Amtrak, No. 1, the tools to make some of 
the changes that you are talking about here today over the next 
5 years; and No. 2, to give it the type of long-term funding 
for high-rate capital investment, high rate of return capital 
investment, that it could be on a sound financial footing by 
the year 2002.
    The man from Metra gave us that catchy saying. I think I 
wrote it down here, something about: If you want to--the better 
you capitalize, the less you will subsidize. That was the whole 
point of what you did 4 months ago. With the TRA you gave 
Amtrak the money to make the high rate of return capital 
investments so that they could stand on its own by 2002.
    What I am essentially saying is give Amtrak the 5-year test 
that you all decided 4 months ago. Let them capitalize at a 
rate that, frankly, has never been allowed for them to do 
before. They are turning the corner. We are about to get high-
speed trains on the Northeast corridor and other places which 
are estimated to return $150 million annually in profit. Let 
them do what they said they wanted to do over the next 5 years. 
Let them capitalize so at the end of 5 years they do not have 
to subsidize.
    You have given them the ability to make changes, to 
renegotiate labor contracts. Let us see where that goes. I have 
heard all this talk about privatization. I am going to mention 
that in a second, but that is what you all did 4 months ago. I 
think you should let that plan operate and then come back to 
the table. If Amtrak by the year 2002 has had the ability to 
capitalize, gets the yearly appropriations that the act 
contemplated--the act did not contemplate that the $2.2 billion 
of TRA funds would supplant any yearly appropriation; it would 
just supplement it. And they do need the yearly appropriation 
and the change in the broad definition of capital expenditures 
to basically do what one of your witnesses said is operating 
dollars. That is correct, but you do not give them operating 
dollars, basically, any more.
    They need that ability to take care of their short-term 
needs so that they can isolate the $2.2 billion to do the type 
of high rate of investment that can make them sound by the year 
2002 and not need to come to you for the subsidy, or certainly 
the subsidy at this level.
    So I think the plan that you all signed off on and so many 
of you spoke so highly of, I think that plan deserves the next 
5 years to see if it works. If it does not, then I think we 
should seriously consider privatizing.
    I am a mayor, Senator, who has privatized 42 functions in 
the city of Philadelphia, considered one of the most difficult 
labor towns in America.
    Senator Shelby. How have they worked?
    Mayor Rendell. And they have worked very well. We save 
about $36 million a year annually and in all but one of those 
functions I can say without contradiction we provide a better 
level of service to our people.

                      Problems With Privatization

    But understand, and I think you do, Senator: Private 
companies are interested in one thing--profit. They are not 
interested in the maximum reach of service. You subject Amtrak 
to privatization, the Amtrak system, and you know what will 
happen? Rural passengers who in many cases depend on it 
desperately--Amtrak serves 62 million rural Americans. They 
will get the shaft. Not one private company will serve those 
small towns in Mississippi that Senator Lott spoke about, or 
the towns in Montana that Senator Baucus spoke about. That will 
not happen.
    The Northeast corridor, you have already heard, this is an 
offer on the table to buy the Northeast corridor right now. 
That could be, is for Amtrak and could be more of a profit 
center. But if you want to take rail service away from rural 
America, away from the Mississippi's, the Montana's, the North 
Dakota's, and the Louisiana's, then subject it to 
privatization, because private companies, they can do a defined 
task very well, but they are not going to provide service, the 
broadest service to the taxpayers and citizens of this country.
    So beware. Privatization is great when it is focused on a 
narrow goal. But put the whole system up to privatization, 
Senator, and I would suggest that many, many of the Senate's 
constituents will be left without any rail service at all. 
Remember, in some of those towns the only nonautomobile link 
between towns in rural areas is Amtrak. So I think we have got 
to go very, very, very, very carefully down that road.

                      Positive Effects of Funding

    Amtrak deserves some credit, Senator, as some of the 
witnesses said, for better performance: $300 million added to 
the bottom line in 2 years; ridership up in the last quarter of 
the past year; ridership had its biggest increase in 14 years, 
a 7-percent increase; $100 million in additional revenues over 
the last 2 years.
    As I said, I think they are making strong decisions to 
spend their money in the high rate of return type of lines and 
type of business. They should be given this 5-year chance.
    You know, it was interesting. Everyone was all over the 
gentleman from Metra with praise, and could Metra take care of 
Milwaukee to Chicago or Portland to Seattle. Everyone was 
praising him. But remember what he said: There are four legs to 
the stool, and one of the essential legs was Federal support. 
Take Federal support away from Metra and let us see how 
successful they are, Senator.
    This is a shell game. You hear the man from the Reason 
Foundation--and by the way, I am one of the darlings of the 
Reason Foundation. When they point to municipal government, I 
am one of the guys they talk about. But they talk about all of 
these great private companies that are running rail systems in 
different countries. Well, high-speed rail in Japan and in 
Europe--subsidized.
    My wife and I went for our 25th anniversary to London and 
Paris, the first time I have been in either of those countries, 
far too busy to go under normal circumstances. So we went for 
our 25th anniversary. I am so interested in trains that we did 
not fly from London to Paris. We took what they call the 
Chunnel. And the Chunnel is beautiful. It is wonderful. It 
provides high-speed rail traffic between London and Paris. It 
is a great alternative. Highly subsidized, highly subsidized.
    They are selling you snake oil. The most successful rail 
lines in the world are highly subsidized.
    Amtrak deserves the chance. Give them the $621 million that 
is in the President's budget, let them take care of their 
short-term needs, and then let them use the $2.2 billion in the 
TRA that you all approved 4 months ago to do this high rate of 
return of investment. Just like the man from Metra says: The 
better they capitalize, the less they are going to have to 
subsidize. And see where they are in 2002.
    Go warily down the road of changing Amtrak. There are 
Mississippians and I would even suggest Alabamians who will be 
hurt, hurt badly, if we do this, if we just say, OK, guys, 
highest bidder, let the private sector take it, we are not 
going to provide a subsidy, we are going to save all this 
Federal money.
    I love to hear these fellows up here who say: Let the local 
governments pay. You know, I think you asked the question or 
Senator Gorton asked the question: Who would pay for Portland 
to Seattle? Well, the State of Washington, the State of Oregon, 
and the city of Portland and the city of Seattle. In all due 
respect, we feel beaten and battered in local government, 
Senator, because everybody is devolving things down to us, and 
as they devolve them down to us the money that used to be 
coming to us is less and less. The Federal share is less 
because we are going to get flexibility. When the State 
devolves it down to us, the State share is less because we are 
going to get flexibility.
    And I look around and there is nobody for me to devolve 
them to. There is nobody left for me to devolve them to and I 
have to bear the burden. And of all of the governments, local 
government has the least resources, the least revenues that we 
can call on, the least taxes we can impose.
    So I think what you are hearing here sounds great when you 
first hear it. You know, it is magic: Oh, Senator, they would 
buy that in a minute. But be wary of how you go down the road. 
We want to keep rail service for America. If we want to keep 
rail service for America, do not think that we can accomplish 
what the Japanese could not and what the Europeans could not. 
Do not think that we can accomplish it with nonsubsidy.
    Senator Shelby. That might be the central question: Do we 
want to keep it? I am speaking about whether the American 
people want to keep it, and if they want to keep it they are 
going to have to give that support and voice to the Congress. 
And second, they are going to have to ride the trains.

                           Paying for Amtrak

    Mayor Rendell. Well, there is no question. And Senator----
    Senator Shelby. Let me ask you this, Mayor Rendell. Do you 
believe that the people who ride the trains ought to pay for 
the trains?
    Mayor Rendell. Ought to pay the appropriate price?
    Senator Shelby. Yes; sure. Or should it be people who do 
not ride them pay for the ones that do ride them? And that is 
what we are doing.
    Mayor Rendell. Well, Senator, I think in the palace of 
truth and justice the people who ride the trains should pay for 
them.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
    Mayor Rendell. But let me suggest to you that, if you want 
to apply that standard to everything that we do in Washington, 
then I am fine with it. But I do not use a lot of the things 
that you subsidize here in Washington and why should I pay for 
them?
    And you know, you hear from the rural States that they do 
not want to subsidize the mass transit in Philadelphia and New 
York, and I understand all that. But if we are going to do it, 
let us do it across the board. And then the question is, as a 
government what is our--and this is a really fundamental 
question, and you have asked the right question. As a 
government, what is our responsibility to the taxpayers? Do we 
link those two rural towns with rail service so that that poor 
person who does not have a car and has no other means of 
getting between those two towns, because there is no bus 
service, has a chance to get between those two towns? Is that 
something that we as a U.S. Government want to do?
    I do every day in Philadelphia, I do things every day--and 
we are again the poster boy for fiscal stability. We took a 
$1.4 billion deficit and turned it into the three largest 
surpluses in the last 3 years in the city's history.
    Senator Shelby. How can Amtrak do that?
    Mayor Rendell. But I do every day, Senator, I make 
decisions every day which are not totally wise on the bottom 
line. I have district health centers and I could close my 
district health centers and say: Let them go to the emergency 
rooms of the hospitals. But some of those district health 
centers are located in areas for people who are old and infirm 
and cannot get to the nearest hospital, which may be 10, 12 
miles away in a big city like Philadelphia.
    So what I am saying is we do not always decide things by 
the bottom line. Can Amtrak do it? I do not know. And even as 
much of a fan as I am of Amtrak, I have some doubts.
    But I believe for the first time what all 100 of you did 4 
months ago gives them the right and proper tools and ability to 
do it, if you will fund the President's budget request. Let us 
give them the 5-year test. If they are back here in 5 years and 
they are still in shaky financial condition, then we should 
look at some of these alternatives.

                          Amtrak's 5-Year Plan

    By the way, in the 5 years in between we can really do some 
study. I mean, let us go to Japan and see how they do it, see 
how important a part government subsidy is. Let us talk about 
these maglev trains. Let us see about the Chunnel. Let us 
examine all of these things carefully. I think we have the time 
to do that.
    Give Amtrak a fair chance. Do what you did 4 months ago, 
give them the $621 million. You know, we have increased funding 
for almost every other form of transportation, and properly so, 
thanks to the action that you took in the Senate. We have 
increased funding for all of those other modes by 38 percent 
from ISTEA 1991 to what you have just done to reauthorize 
ISTEA. You have increased it by 38 percent. Amtrak, what we are 
doing for Amtrak is negligible compared to that in percentage 
terms. I am not even talking about real dollars.
    Give them a chance over the next 5 years and see where we 
are. Do I think that they can make it? I am not sure. Do I 
think that 5 years from now you are still not going to be faced 
with the choice of some of those rural lines saying there are 
not enough people riding them, I am sorry, Mrs. Smith, the 87-
year-old grandmother who has no other way to get to those 
towns, we cannot provide transportation for you?
    Maybe we have to make that choice. Give them a chance. This 
is one area where the Northeast corridor can wind up 
subsidizing rural transportation. And you know what, Senator? 
That does not bother me. If that is the only way that rural 
Americans can get from town to town, it does not bother me.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Senator Shelby. We appreciate your statement and we 
appreciate everything you have said, and I know where you are 
coming from.
    I do have an observation, though. You mentioned the 5 
years. Where are we going to be in 5 years? That would concern 
me. I think we will be right back at the table here and Amtrak 
will be wanting more and more money. I hope that will not be 
the case, but if it is I think Amtrak will have to go.
    Mayor Rendell. Absolutely.
    Senator Shelby. Because the American people should not 
continue to let a system hemorrhage and hemorrhage and 
hemorrhage. What we are trying to do is look at Amtrak 
realistically and also prospectively, where is it today, where 
is it going, and what is going to change it?
    Mayor Rendell. I agree, Senator. But give them some credit, 
as all the speakers here said, for all the improvements they 
have made in the bottom line. The high-speed trains will 
increase their profitability. Let us see where they are.
    Senator, again, if you form a task force to look at this 
while you let the TRA and what you did 4 months ago work, I 
would be happy to volunteer my time to look at it, because it 
is an issue that I care very, very deeply about.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, and I hope you get to the train 
on time.
    Mayor Rendell. I will. It is an Amtrak train.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
                    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK LEW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

                        Introduction of witness

    Senator Shelby. Our last panel will be Mr. Jack Lew, Deputy 
Director of OMB. Mr. Lew, thank you for your patience in 
deferring to the mayor on that. Your written testimony will be 
made part of the record in its entirety and you may proceed as 
you wish.
    Mr. Lew. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to 
listen to Mayor Rendell and I would like to associate myself 
with many of his remarks.
    Since my prepared statement is in the record, I will just 
briefly summarize my remarks, and then I would be happy to 
answer any questions that you have.
    If I can take off on the question that you were asking 
Mayor Rendell, I think there is a very fundamental question 
that we are going to be dealing with over not just this year, 
but the next 5-plus years. Do we want to have a national 
railroad system; do we want to have there be any subsidies?
    Senator Shelby. The central question.
    Mr. Lew. The central question.

                      Flexibility of Capital Funds

    I think we have to take a step back, though, and realize 
where we were when I had the pleasure of testifying before this 
committee last year. We were looking at an Amtrak that was 
going literally from day to day unable to see how it was going 
to pay obligatory tax payments, without a clear vision of what 
we were going to do over the next several years to make things 
better.
    An awful lot has happened in the last year, and I think it 
is important, as Mayor Rendell said, to give some of the things 
that have happened over the last year a chance to mature. Over 
the last year two important pieces of law were enacted. 
Obviously, I do not need to tell this committee about either 
the Taxpayer Relief Act or the Amtrak Reform Act.
    Those two pieces of legislation provided not just money. 
They provided a framework for Amtrak to get its house in order. 
They provided a framework where decisions can be made so that 
the tradeoffs between operating expenses, urgent immediate 
expenses, and capital are somewhat less severe.
    In light of the decision made, I think very wisely, by this 
committee last year on the transportation appropriation bill 
regarding transit to provide additional flexibility for the use 
of capital to encourage the repair and maintenance of rolling 
stock, rather than just to go out and purchase because that is 
what capital support could be used for. If you apply that 
principle to the appropriation request that we have made, what 
you have is an Amtrak that will be able, over the next year, to 
invest wisely in maintaining its equipment, to invest wisely in 
intermediate term investment strategies, and to use the 
Taxpayer Relief Act assistance to do the kind of long-range 
capital planning, high-yield investment that it was designed to 
provide.
    That is a very different picture from the Amtrak we were 
looking at a year ago that needed money just to pay its bills 
and then had to pay the next bill. It could not go through the 
kind of planning that we are talking about here.
    Second, there was a very important labor agreement. 
Reaching an agreement with a major union gives Amtrak a 
framework for managing its fiscal affairs very, very different 
than we saw a year ago. It opens the door to discussions with 
other crafts.
    Can I sit here before the committee and say that never 
again will an OMB Director or Deputy Director be asking for an 
Amtrak subsidy? No, I cannot, and frankly I do not think I 
should say that. I do not think that would be the right policy.
    Senator Shelby. Why? Why would it not be the right policy? 
I mean, this is taxpayer money.
    Mr. Lew. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I was going to address 
that question.
    I think that what we have to do is get Amtrak's house in 
order. We have to separate the question of should there be a 
subsidy for railroads in this country from the question of is 
Amtrak managing its affairs sensibly. I think the comparisons 
that you have heard earlier today to highway investments, to 
investments in aircraft, in the airline industry, are very 
relevant.
    We are watching Congress pass a very generous highway bill, 
a bill which meets many urgent needs around the country. But we 
are not questioning whether every mile built is economically as 
valuable as every other mile built. We are saying the whole 
country needs roads. We are saying that places need to be 
connected. People have to travel for business, people have to 
travel for their personal affairs, commerce has to flow.
    The question of aircraft, airlines: the research and 
development that goes into the airline industry is very heavily 
supported by the Government. A large share of the NASA budget 
goes into research that is very relevant to the future of the 
next century of aircraft development.
    Senator Shelby. Let me stop you just a second.
    Mr. Lew. Sure.

                       Other Transportation Modes

    Senator Shelby. You realize probably as well as anybody, 
but we ought to clear it up for the record, that the highway 
funds are supported by gas taxes on all Americans, everywhere 
you buy it; and also the airlines are supported by the airline 
ticket tax, are they not?
    Mr. Lew. Well, clearly there are ticket taxes, there are 
gas taxes.
    Senator Shelby. But we do not have a tax that I recall on 
Amtrak passengers.
    Mr. Lew. There are many uses of the highway trust fund that 
are cross-subsidies. I do not think that there would be anyone 
who would argue that every dollar goes back to where it was 
collected. It is a large enough system that permits cross-
subsidies internally. I think if we were to look at the airline 
industry over the years and look at Federal dollars that have 
gone into airport construction, air traffic control design, air 
traffic control system, air traffic control operation, research 
into aviation, they are very substantial subsidies.
    The fact that there are now user fees is very real, and we 
have proposed them. We advocate them. I think that it is the 
right way to go. We think that Amtrak revenues should provide 
most of their operating subsidies.
    The question that I was trying to get to, and I will wrap 
up my remarks, if I can, with this, is that if everything is 
going well in Amtrak there still will be a question, do we want 
to have a very, very much reduced rail system where only the 
systems that can run privately economically are left? I do not 
think that is where we want to go as a country. It is not our 
view of where we want to go.
    The important thing about the framework we are operating 
under under the Taxpayer Relief Act and the Amtrak Reform Act 
is that it builds in place a 2-year look-back. In 2 years we 
are supposed to see whether Amtrak has gotten its fiscal house 
in order. Over 5 years we are supposed to see how much progress 
they have made and then look back and see, should we proceed 
with privatization.

                             Funding Amtrak

    What would be unfair would be not to fund the agreement, 
and the agreement called for $5 billion of support over the 5 
years. Part of the funds came through the Taxpayer Relief Act, 
part of the funds come through our request in the budget. If 
the $620 million that is requested in the budget is not 
provided, we are not going to be giving the 5-year experiment a 
chance.
    I would be happy to answer any questions, Senator.

                           Prepared Statement

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Lew. We have your complete 
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
    [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Jacob J. Lew
    Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am 
Jack Lew, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Thank 
you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the President's 
fiscal year 1999 budget proposal for Amtrak. After my brief statement I 
will be happy to answer your questions.
    The goal of the President's 1999 budget proposal for Amtrak is 
straightforward--we seek to continue on the bipartisan path to reform 
that was laid out last year in the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA) and the 
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (ARAA). The budget is the first 
step along this difficult path.
    Since my testimony on Amtrak before this Subcommittee last July, a 
number of significant changes have occurred. Last year, Amtrak had 
operated for three years without a reauthorization bill. The failure to 
reauthorize Amtrak was symptomatic of the deep divisions in Congress on 
the future of intercity passenger rail. There were also serious and 
pressing questions concerning Amtrak's economic viability. As you may 
recall, my July testimony about railroad retirement payments made clear 
that Amtrak faced pressing cash-flow issues for both the short-term and 
long-term. Finally, at this time last year Amtrak and its 14 unions 
were at loggerheads over terms of collective bargaining agreements 
which had long since gone past the end of their original terms.
    Over the past year, there have been a number of encouraging 
developments. A bipartisan consensus emerged to support the Amtrak 
Reform and Accountability Act. The Act was passed by the Congress and 
signed into law by the President on December 2, 1997. Enactment of this 
Act allows Amtrak access to roughly $2.2 billion in financial resources 
made available to the Corporation under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
1997. The TRA resources hold the promise of allowing Amtrak to 
recapitalize its rolling stock and make the high-yield investments 
necessary to sustain intercity passenger rail into the next century. 
Finally, there has been progress in negotiations with the unions 
representing Amtrak employees. An agreement was signed with one of 
Amtrak's largest crafts, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 
Employees last November. In addition, constructive negotiations appear 
to be underway between Amtrak and its other unions.
    The President's 1999 budget proposal for Amtrak follows through on 
the bipartisan efforts of this Congress in the Reform Act. Like the 
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, the President's Budget seeks to 
provide adequate funding, promote efficiency, and enhance 
accountability. First, our budget provides the minimum funding 
necessary for a revitalized and viable Amtrak. Second, our budget seeks 
to broaden the definition of ``capital expenses,'' and thereby allow 
Amtrak to enhance its capital stock in the most cost-effective manner 
possible. Finally, our budget insists on the accountability needed to 
ensure that Federal funds are spent appropriately.
     the need for discretionary appropriations in fiscal year 1999
    The President's 1999 budget seeks $621 million in capital grant 
funding and no operating grant funding. The President's budget assumes 
Amtrak outyear funding for capital grants of $571 million in 2000, and 
$521 million annually in 2001, 2002, and 2003. The 1999 request for 
$621 million is comprised of:
  --up to $409 million for general capital;
  --no less than $200,000,000 for the Northeast Corridor Improvement 
        Program (NECIP);
  --$12 million for the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project to 
        complete the Administration's $100 million commitment of 
        Federal funds to the Project; and
  --$500,000 for administrative support of the Amtrak's Reform Council 
        and an annual financial assessment of Amtrak.
    The Reform Act authorizes over $5 billion for Amtrak over the next 
five years. The President's budget implements the Reform Act 
authorizations by providing $5 billion in financial resources for 
Amtrak through 2002, inclusive of the $2.2 billion provided through the 
TRA. This $5 billion level of funding meets the requirements of 
Amtrak's most recent business plan of March 10, 1998. Counting the 
resources provided by the TRA, the President's budget provides roughly 
$1.7 billion in financial resources in 1999--$700 million more than any 
of the annual appropriations received by Amtrak in the past 17 years.
    We believe these resources are necessary. Without them, Amtrak will 
not be able to recapitalize its rolling stock and enjoy the fruits of 
the bipartisan consensus embodied in the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act. New capital appropriations will allow Amtrak to 
move beyond its ``hand to mouth'' existence of recent years, and permit 
investments in the capital assets that will return benefit to the 
Corporation and, over the long run, reduce Amtrak's reliance on Federal 
financial assistance.
                 promoting amtrak's economic efficiency
    The Administration supports Amtrak's proposal to use its Federal 
capital grants in the same fashion as transit uses Federal capital 
grants. We also support Amtrak's request to have the capital funds made 
available on October 1, 1998.
    Last year Congress adopted a new definition of capital that allowed 
Federal capital grants for transit to be used either to buy new assets 
or to maintain existing assets. By supporting equally both the repair 
of existing assets and the purchase of new capital, Federal transit 
grants now encourage grant recipients to manage their capital stock in 
the most cost-effective manner. In contrast, capital grants for Amtrak 
in the past have been used only for the purchase of new assets. 
Allowing Amtrak to use its capital grants under the same rules that now 
apply to transit will ensure that Amtrak capital grants do not distort 
market signals about the tradeoff between the repair of existing assets 
and the purchase of new capital. And by allowing Amtrak to face true 
price signals, the broader definition of capital will ensure that 
Amtrak can use capital grants in a cost-effective manner that 
recognizes the tradeoffs between maintenance and the purchase of new 
assets.
    With an expanded definition of capital, Amtrak will not only be 
able to make high-yield investments in infrastructure and equipment, 
but also to fund activities that improve operational reliability. For 
example, Amtrak will be able to maintain shop facilities and machinery 
used to repair car and locomotive mechanical and electrical systems 
(e.g. air conditioning, engines), perform progressive overhauls, and 
rework train components (rewiring or updating of equipment).
                        promoting accountability
    Finally, the President's Budget request would impose new fiscal 
discipline on Amtrak by requiring the Corporation to submit a 
comprehensive plan for spending its funds in a prudent fashion. Both 
the fiscal year 1999 capital appropriation and the 1999 portion of TRA 
funds would be released to Amtrak only after approval of the plan by 
the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget. This plan will provide added 
assurances to Congress and the Administration that Amtrak will invest 
wisely in its future.
                               conclusion
    The President's Budget offers a practical way to encourage the 
long-term success of Amtrak. By providing $621 million in direct 
appropriations, the President's Budget would allow the funds made 
available by the TRA to be invested in high rate-of-return projects, 
such as the critical infrastructure needed to begin high speed rail 
service in the Northeast Corridor in 1999. We believe that these high-
return projects will revitalize the undercapitalized core of Amtrak's 
assets and provide fresh revenue to Amtrak, thereby reducing the need 
for future federal financial assistance.
    As Amtrak has testified before the House Appropriations Committee, 
the President's Budget request--with the added flexibilities that I 
have discussed above--will allow Amtrak to implement its five-year 
business strategy. The Administration looks forward to working with 
this Committee to provide Amtrak with the funding that it needs to 
succeed as a vital part of our nation's transportation system.
    This concludes my written statement. At this time I would be 
pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

                         Flexibility of Funding

    Senator Shelby. The TRA specifically allows for funds to be 
used, it is my understanding, for maintenance of existing 
equipment, which is traditionally an operating expense; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Lew. That is correct, Senator.
    Senator Shelby. But do you think we need flexibility in the 
appropriated fund? In other words, your appropriations request 
is for $621 million in capital funding. I do not see any bill 
language directing that some of the funds can be used for 
operating activities.
    Mr. Lew. Well, with respect to the appropriation request, 
we really are taking the view that the approach the committee 
took for transit last year is the appropriate approach. Now, 
that does provide some flexibility, but it does not go all the 
way to operating. It is a somewhat broader definition of 
capital and we think an appropriately broadened definition of 
capital.
    There are legal questions whether you have to enact a new 
provision, whether the current provision would extend to 
Amtrak. We think that it is a wise approach, it is the approach 
that should be taken, and if it requires legislative language 
we would like to work with the committee to develop it.
    That would permit the most economical decisions to be made. 
Amtrak has enough operating revenues of its own to meet its 
basic operating expenses. If there is a choice between 
repairing rolling stock, and going out and purchasing rolling 
stock, and repairing is cheaper and will keep the system 
functioning longer at a lower price, we think it would be wise 
for the capital funds to be available for that purpose.
    The same is true over many, many aspects of the system.
    Senator Shelby. Do you plan to send up a budget amendment 
to change the request?
    Mr. Lew. I am not certain it requires a change. We would 
like to work with the committee and the staff. If the view of 
the committee is it requires----
    Senator Shelby. Why would it not be required?
    Mr. Lew. The definition of transit and the interpretation 
of it under the Federal Railroad Administration has been broad. 
It could extend to Amtrak. We are frankly not certain it 
requires legislation. If it does we would be delighted to send 
up language. We do not mean to make a challenge of it. We are 
not sure.

                     Future Self-Sufficiency a Myth

    Senator Shelby. Well, we appreciate your participation and 
we appreciate your patience and your efforts earlier.
    It seems to me at this point in time that there is never 
really enough, enough money for Amtrak, and the whole concept 
of glidepath to self-sufficiency seems to be a myth. You know, 
we have had testimony here to that effect, basically. Amtrak I 
believe intends to remain on the Federal dole for a long time 
as we provide it, and the administration's request seems to 
support that position. That is what concerns me as well as a 
lot of Senators: When will Amtrak be self-sufficient, if ever?
    I think it is time to actively look for a better way, 
perhaps an alternative. There are places in America that need 
and can sustain competitive passenger rail service. We have had 
testimony to that effect. But we should no longer, I believe, 
support the status quo, putting more and more Federal funds 
into a system that can be characterized basically as a failed 
national experiment up to now.

                          Submitted Questions

    We will submit additional questions to be answered in 
writing for the record.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
                    Office of Management and Budget
               Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
                administration's modified budget request
    Question. Recently, the Administration made an important 
modification to its Amtrak budget request which was to support applying 
the transit capital maintenance definition to Amtrak. Can you please 
explain the reason behind this modification and how you believe it 
allows the Administration's budget request to work for Amtrak?
    Answer. The application of the transit capital maintenance 
definition to Amtrak is an important step in providing Amtrak the 
flexibility it needs to operate more like a business. This broader 
definition, one which the Congress has already embraced for use by the 
Federal Transit Administration, will allow Amtrak to manage their 
capital assets in the most efficient manner. We do not view the 
application of the transit definition as a change to our budget 
request, but, as stated during the hearing, the Administration stands 
ready to work with the Committee to submit any additional language or 
legislative proposal the Committee deems necessary to support this 
request.
    Previously, federal capital grants for Amtrak have been used only 
for the purchase of new assets. The expanded definition of capital 
grants will allow Amtrak to make a balanced trade off between 
purchasing new assets or repairing existing assets. For example, Amtrak 
will now be able to use its capital grant to invest in facilities and 
machinery which improve operational reliability. Further, this proposal 
will allow Amtrak to use the funds provided under the Taxpayer Relief 
Act for high rate of return capital investments.
               failure to fully fund president's request
    Question. What do you believe the impact on Amtrak's financial 
situation would be if this Committee provided less then the $621 
million requested by the President.
    Answer. The $621 million request is the level of funding needed to 
ensure Amtrak a fair chance at proceeding with its efforts to 
recapitalize the Corporation and to institute the reforms envisioned in 
the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. If the Committee were to 
provide less than the $621 million request, Amtrak would continue its 
operations, but be forced to substitute the TRA funds for ``missing'' 
grant funds. Depending on the amount of underfunding, the substitution 
could quickly eat away at the TRA funds. The use of the TRA funds to 
cover the discretionary funding shortfall would mean that Amtrak would 
soon again be in the same position it found itself prior to passage of 
the TRA--staggering from appropriation to appropriation barely able to 
survive. In sum, the underfunding of the President's request will delay 
critical long-term investments, and undermine recent bipartisan reform 
efforts.
                  release of funds on october 1, 1998
    Question. What would the impact be on Amtrak's financial health and 
its operations if we do not release the funds on October 1, but instead 
delay release until July 1 as we've done for the past few years? Does 
the Administration support releasing the funds on October 1 rather than 
July 1?
    Answer. The Administration supports release of the funds on October 
1, 1998, rather than July 1, 1998. The delay in release of the funds 
would force Amtrak to take steps to meet serious cash flow problems. 
During fiscal year 1998, and in previous years, Amtrak was able to draw 
50 percent of its Federal operating grants at the beginning of the 
fiscal year. With no operating grant proposed this year, Amtrak must 
rely on the capital grant and TRA borrowing to meet any cash flow 
shortages. According to Amtrak, delaying the release of funds to July 
1, 1999, could cause (but is not certain to cause) Amtrak's cumulative 
cash shortfall up until July 1 to exceed the amount Amtrak is able to 
borrow from the TRA and commercial banks.
                using amtrak funds for building highways
    Question. There are some in Congress who would like to shut down 
Amtrak and use this money to build more highways. In your opinion, 
would such a move be good transportation policy? Would the 
Administration support that approach?
    Answer. We need to have a balanced transportation policy. Shutting 
down Amtrak would not be good transportation policy, and would not be 
supported by the Administration. Our NEXTEA proposal to the Congress, 
our budget, and my testimony before this Committee have made it clear 
that funding Amtrak is a vital part of our nation's balanced 
transportation policy.
                         preventive maintenance
    Question. How can preventive maintenance be considered a capital 
expense?
    Answer. In passage of the 1998 Transportation Appropriations Act, 
this Committee recognized that preventive maintenance conducted by the 
Federal Transit Administration could be considered a capital expense. 
When Amtrak, for example, inspects, tests, adjusts and repairs rail 
cars, locomotives, tracks, communication systems, signal systems, and 
power transmission systems, these expenses sustain the related 
equipment infrastructure and facility capital assets of Amtrak and help 
ensure their continued dependable service.
                                 ______
                                 
            National Railroad Passenger Corporation [Amtrak]
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
    Question. If Amtrak adheres to its March 1998 Strategic Business 
Plan, will the railroad be independent from federal operating subsidy 
by 2002?
    Answer. The revised Strategic Business Plan assumes no federal 
operating subsidy, but does assume a single federal capital 
appropriation with flexibility identical to that enjoyed by the 
transit, aviation, maritime and highway industries. However, between 
fiscal year 1999-03, Amtrak plans to reduce the amount of federal 
capital appropriations used for ``capital maintenance'' to levels below 
fiscal year 1998's operating subsidy.
    All of the following needs to happen for Amtrak to achieve 
financial viability over the next several years:
  --General capital appropriations of $621 million in fiscal year 1999, 
        $571 million in fiscal year 2000 and $521 million in fiscal 
        year 2001, fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 as proposed by 
        the Administration;
  --Flexibility for Amtrak to use these general capital grants in a 
        manner consistent with the Federal Transit Administration's 
        definition of capital grants;
  --Amtrak is allowed to draw 40 percent of these capital grants on 
        October 1 of each fiscal year and the remaining 60 percent on 
        October 1 of the following fiscal year.
    Question. Does the administration's request for $621,000,000 in 
capital funds for Amtrak reflect the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations 
to separate Amtrak's infrastructure management from its operations?
    Answer. No, it does not. The request for $621 million in capital 
does, however, reflect the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendation that a 
higher level of reliable federal capital funding is absolutely 
essential to preserve a healthy national passenger rail system.
    Question. Please explain the administration's position that no 
specific legislative provision is required to give Amtrak the 
flexibility to use the same capital project investment criteria as was 
specified for the Federal Transit Administration in Sec. 316 of Public 
Law 105-66.
    Answer. Amtrak understands that the Administration's opinion is 
based on the fact that the first requirement in determining the ability 
to spend capital funding is to look to the language of the 
appropriation itself, and then to authorizing and program legislation. 
Historically, there has been no specific statutory definition of what 
constitutes a capital expense for Amtrak in either appropriations acts 
or authorizing legislation. Congress could have subjected Amtrak to the 
accounting rules mandated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (now 
the Surface Transportation Board), but chose not to do so. Where the 
statute and the legislative history do not provide a clear legislative 
intent for particular language, a court turns first to the ``plain 
meaning'' of the words, which is a dictionary or ordinary, everyday 
meaning, rather than some obscure usage. Application of this standard 
still takes into consideration related factors, such as its interaction 
with other statutes, to avoid an unreasonable result. The ordinary, 
everyday meaning of ``capital expense'' in American business matters is 
that defined under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
    Since Amtrak funding flows through Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) appropriations, the next element of analysis is the weight to be 
given FRA's interpretation of how the funding may be spent. Although 
the disbursement of Amtrak funding is not subject to specific 
regulations issued by FRA, since Congress has charged FRA with the 
responsibility of administering that disbursement, FRA's interpretation 
is entitled to considerable weight.
    Thus, it is our understanding the Administration believes that 
Amtrak could begin using the Transit Act definition of ``capital 
expense'' if it were to first inform the appropriations committee in 
its budget request of this intention and Congress then directs that the 
funds be spent in accordance with the budget request.
    Question. For what specific activities does the Taxpayer Relief Act 
allow Amtrak to use the 1998 and 1999 tax refund allocations? How does 
this differ from activities allowed under the expanded capital 
definition the administration is requesting for Amtrak in the fiscal 
year 1999 appropriations request?
    Answer. The Taxpayer Relief Act allows Amtrak to use the 1998 and 
1999 tax refund amounts for the acquisition of capital assets 
(equipment and other capital improvements): upgrading maintenance 
facilities and the maintenance of equipment; and payment of interest 
and principal on obligations incurred for qualified expenses. 
Maintenance of equipment expenses include the following costs related 
to equipment used in intercity passenger rail service; mechanical and 
electrical inspections; programmed and unscheduled repairs; and 
maintenance shop facility and equipment costs.
    The expanded capital definition the Administration is requesting 
for Amtrak in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations request includes all 
of the same items allowed under the Taxpayer Relief Act except 
interest. In addition, it allows for the use of capital funds for 
maintenance of infrastructure and facilities. These costs include 
inspection, testing, repair and adjustments related to tracks, bridges, 
trestles, culverts, roadway machinery, facilities and communication, 
signal and power transmission systems.
    Question. If the FTA's expanded capital definition were applied to 
Amtrak capital, what is the maximum amount of the $621,000,000 in the 
fiscal year 1999 request that could be used for maintenance of 
equipment, infrastructure, and facilities?
    Answer. An estimated maximum amount of $542,000,000 could be used 
for maintenance of equipment infrastructure and facilities in fiscal 
year 1999.
    Question. What control mechanisms are in place for ensuring that 
both TRA and appropriated funds are utilized in a manner consistent 
with the law?
    Answer. The TRA funds along with the interest earned on these 
funds, are held in accounts separate from the Company's operating 
funds. Withdrawals from these accounts can only be made for legally 
qualified expenses, which have also been approved by Amtrak's board of 
directors. Internal control procedures on withdrawals include (1) funds 
can only be withdrawn by wire transfer; (2) only two individuals in the 
Treasurer's Department can request a wire transfer; (3) all transfers 
must be authorized by one of three Corporate Officers, the Chief 
Financial Officer, the Treasurer or the Controller. These withdrawals 
must be clearly identified and properly supported. Reports have been 
designed and are being used to track all activity in the fund, 
including earnings and withdrawals. These reports are prepared monthly 
by a certified public accountant assigned to this responsibility.
    In regard to other appropriations, spending is also subject to 
approval by Amtrak's board of director's, and must be clearly 
identified and properly supported. Reports on these expenditures are 
also prepared monthly.
    As far as external controls, every year Price Waterhouse L.L.P., 
audits our financial statements. This past year they provided an 
unqualified opinion, meaning they have no issues or concerns with our 
statements. In addition, we are subject to continual review by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO), our own Inspector General, and more 
recently, the DOT Inspector General, and the Amtrak Reform Council 
(ARC). We have several Congressional oversight committees which include 
House Transportation and Infrastructure; House Committee on 
Appropriations; Senate Committee on Science, Commerce and 
Transportation, and Senate Committee on Appropriations.
    Question. Please compare the amount of income anticipated from the 
express pilot program in fiscal year 1997 and thus far in fiscal year 
1998 with the amount of funds actually generated by this program. How 
will this shortfall against anticipated income affect Amtrak's net loss 
in fiscal year 1998, and what will the Corporation do to mitigate these 
losses? What level of income from the express pilot program is 
anticipated for fiscal year 1999?
    Answer.

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Fiscal year               Revenue      Expense        Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.............................          0.3          0.4         -0.1
1998 (as of March 31, 1998)......          1.2          4.4         -3.1
1998 Business Plan...............         36.1         25.0        +11.1
1999 Business Plan...............         61.2         40.3        +20.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to deterioration of the express business, incremental wage 
costs and other expenses, Amtrak now expects to have to cover 
approximately $200 million at year end, worst case. This $200 million 
maximum cash shortfall will be covered by $100 million short-term bank 
borrowing and temporary borrowing from the TRA fund for qualified 
expenses of up to $100 million.
    Question. Amtrak has traditionally received its capital 
appropriation in July of each year. Given that the money contained in 
the Administration's budget would not be available until July 1999, 
will this create any short-term funding shortfalls and if so, how will 
this be addressed?
    Answer. In working with the Administration, Amtrak stated that it 
could work with their proposed capital appropriation with two 
modifications. First, 40 percent of the general capital grant would be 
available October 1, 1998 and the remaining 60 percent would be 
available October 1, 1999. Second, Amtrak would have the flexibility to 
use this general capital grant for capital maintenance consistent with 
the Federal Transit Administrator's fiscal year 1998 appropriations 
language governing general capital. In the Federal Railroad 
Administration's grant justification they have included both those 
modifications.
    Under the proposed plan, the funds available to Amtrak on October 
1st (40 percent of the annual appropriation) is significantly less than 
the amount Amtrak has traditionally received when 100 percent of the 
operating grant was received by April 1. If the receipt of the 40 
percent of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation is delayed to July 1st, 
the cumulative cash shortfall until that time will exceed the amount 
Amtrak is able to borrow.
    The administration supports the release of funds on October 1 
rather than on July 1, as stated in Deputy Director Jacob Lew's written 
and oral testimony of March 24th.
    Question. The reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act of 1997 provide Amtrak with additional flexibility 
to address its financial problems. Specifically, how will these reforms 
contribute to Amtrak's short-term and long-term financial viability?
    Answer. With the passing of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability 
Act, many of the barriers imposed in the past have been removed.
    These reforms include the repeal of the requirement that Amtrak 
operate a federally-mandated basic route system for passenger services, 
the elimination of the statutorily prescribed protections for employees 
affected by a route discontinuance, authorization for Amtrak to 
negotiate changes in how it contracts out certain labor functions, and 
significant liability reforms.
    In the short-term, the contracting out of certain labor functions 
will not have an immediate effect on Amtrak's financial performance. 
This is because under the terms of the Authorization Bill, the 
contracting out language in the Rail Passenger Service Act was 
eliminated in law and placed in each labor agreement. Negotiations over 
contracting out must begin no later than Nov. 1, 1999, under the terms 
of the Railway Labor Act.
    The liability reforms will also have little or no effect on 
Amtrak's financial performance in the short-term. The $200 million 
liability limit will likely only come into play following an incident 
resulting in a large number of severe injuries to passengers and 
passenger deaths. Such an event has not yet occurred, and we hope it 
never will.
    It is unclear what the long-term effect of contracting out certain 
labor functions will be since this will depend on the types of work 
that Amtrak may try to contract out, as well as the outcome of the 
negotiations on this issue.
    It is also unclear of how the liability reforms will effect 
Amtrak's financial viability in the long-term. Amtrak has had only one 
accident where the total losses exceeded $100 million: Chase, MD. 
Unless the future brings several larger catastrophes, this $200 million 
liability limit for compensatory and punitive damages for passenger 
injuries or death will function mainly as ``unused insurance''.
    Question. Please provide a funding history, by fiscal year, of 
Amrak's federal appropriations and other federal funds from the 
Corporation's creation to present.
    Answer. The requested information follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA24.007
    
    Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year operating loss, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation to 
present.
    Answer. We define net operating loss as total revenues minus total 
expenses. The requested information follows:

        Year                                                      Amount
1971....................................................     $91,600,000
1972....................................................     150,800,000
1973....................................................     158,600,000
1974....................................................     272,700,000
1975....................................................     352,500,000
1976....................................................     342,600,000
1977....................................................     536,700,000
1978....................................................     581,700,000
1979....................................................     619,800,000
1980....................................................      27,200,000
1981....................................................     179,100,000
1980-81 cum. adj.\1\....................................      40,900,000
1982....................................................     795,100,000
1983....................................................     804,900,000
1984....................................................     763,300,000
1985....................................................     774,300,000
1986....................................................     702,200,000
1987....................................................     698,500,000
1988....................................................     650,400,000
1989....................................................     665,500,000
1990....................................................     703,400,000
1991....................................................     721,600,000
1992....................................................     711,800,000
1993....................................................     731,000,000
1994....................................................   1,076,800,000
1995....................................................     808,200,000
1996....................................................     763,600,000
1997....................................................     761,900,000

\1\ In 1983, Amtrak changed its method of depreciation for track 
structures. 1983 and 1982 net loss figures reflect the effects of this 
change, while the effect for 1980-1981 as disclosed in the 1993 Annual 
Report totaled $40.9 million.

    Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year debt load, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation to 
present.
    Answer.
                                                         Fiscal year end
        Fiscal year                                     outstanding debt
1971....................................................     $25,700,000
1972....................................................       7,100,000
1973....................................................     109,500,000
1974....................................................     297,500,000
1975....................................................     484,900,000
1976....................................................     753,200,000
1977....................................................     762,400,000
1978....................................................     885,900,000
1979....................................................     972,600,000
1980....................................................   1,236,000,000
1981....................................................   1,784,400,000
1982....................................................   2,342,900,000
1983....................................................   2,743,500,000
1984....................................................   3,004,600,000
1985....................................................   3,185,500,000
1986....................................................      23,800,000
1987....................................................      22,700,000
1988....................................................      35,900,000
1989....................................................     126,500,000
1990....................................................     183,800,000
1991....................................................     287,900,000
1992....................................................     418,800,000
1993....................................................     492,300,000
1994....................................................     770,300,000
1995....................................................     836,900,000
1996....................................................     986,900,000
1997....................................................   1,336,400,000

    In fiscal year 1988 two promissory notes issued by the Federal 
Government to fund the acquisition of and improvements to property and 
equipment were reclassified as Federal Paid-In Capital. Fiscal year 
1986 and fiscal year 1987 are restated to reflect this 
reclassification. The reclassification does not affect operating 
results.
    Question. What plans does Amtrak have to adjust its route structure 
in calendar 1998, in order to decrease the railroad's operating losses? 
What route structure adjustments were made in calendar 1997?
    Answer. The following route structure adjustments were made in 
calendar 1997 to decrease Amtrak's operating losses:
    1. March 1997.--Discontinuance of the Gulf Coast Limited between 
New Orleans, LA and Mobile, AL. This service had originally been 
started in June 1996 as a three month demonstration service, funded in 
part by a regional funding authority. Although the regional funding was 
used up within 90 days, continuation of service was mandated by 
Congress through March, 1997. Service between New Orleans and Mobile 
continues three days a week on the Sunset Limited.
    2. May 1997.--An extensive service restructuring in Amtrak's 
Intercity SBU to use equipment more efficiently. This included 
rationalizing maintenance facilities and re-positioning equipment onto 
routes with more market potential. The original restructuring was 
recommended to take effect in November 1996, but Congress statutorily 
delayed implementation of most elements of the plan until May, 1997.
    The following routes were discontinued:
    Pioneer--Route operated between Chicago and Seattle via Denver and 
Portland, Oregon. Discontinuance only affected the segment between 
Denver and Portland, since daily service remains on the Chicago-Denver 
and Portland-Seattle portions of the route.
    Desert Wind--Route operated between Chicago and Los Angeles via 
Salt Lake City. Discontinuance only eliminated service between Salt 
Lake City and Los Angeles, since daily service continues between 
Chicago and Salt Lake City on the California Zephyr. Daily service is 
expected to resume between Los Angeles and Las Vegas in early calendar 
1999.
    In addition, through car service from the Texas Eagle that had been 
combined with the Sunset Limited between San Antonio and Los Angeles 
was discontinued in order to make the extra equipment required for this 
service available for other routes.
    The following routes were restored to daily service:
    City of New Orleans--Route operates between New Orleans, LA and 
Chicago, IL. This route also began sharing equipment with the Empire 
Builder in order to use equipment more efficiently.
    Empire Builder--Route operates between Chicago and Seattle or 
Portland. Daily service was restored between Minneapolis and the West 
Coast. This service shares equipment with the City of New Orleans.
    California Zephyr--Route operates between Chicago and Emeryville, 
CA (near Oakland).
    3. July 1997.--The Twilight Shoreliner replaced the Night Owl in 
Northeast Direct service in the Northeast Corridor. The Night Owl 
operated overnight between Washington, DC and Boston, MA. With the 
startup of the Twilight Shoreliner service was extended to Newport 
News, VA, in order to make better use of equipment and attract 
additional revenue. The schedule was also adjusted to serve New York 
City at a more attractive time, and new Viewliner sleepers were added 
to the train's consist.
    4. August 1997.--The Sunset Limited was extended to Orlando, FL, 
after determining that the additional revenue attracted would more than 
offset the additional cost incurred by extending the route.
    5. October 1997.--Two additional state-supported San Diegan 
frequencies were established between Los Angeles, CA and San Diego, CA, 
with one existing frequency extended beyond Los Angeles to Chatsworth, 
CA.
    In addition, one of three existing Chicago to Pontiac, MI services 
was cut back to Detroit, MI, in order to make better use of equipment.
    Calendar year 1998 adjustments were, or will be, as follows. Where 
service additions are noted, they are either due to cost savings (Ethan 
Allen Express) or due to anticipated revenues exceeding the incremental 
cost of adding the service.
    1. January 1998.--Extension of an existing, state-supported 
Capitols frequency from Roseville, CA to Colfax, CA.
    2. February 1998.--Addition of one Texas Eagle frequency to bring 
the total to four round trips per week. This new frequency operates 
between Chicago and Los Angeles via San Antonio. It was added primarily 
due to the current and future growth of the full car-load express 
business.
    Also, a northbound only frequency was added to the Ethan Allen 
Express between Albany, NY and Rutland, VT. This change allows 
substantial savings in crew layover and contracted turnaround servicing 
costs.
    3. April 1998.--An eleventh weekday frequency was added between 
Albany, NY and New York City due to significant ridership growth over 
the preceding year.
    4. May 1998.--Amtrak is planning to add a fourth daily frequency in 
the Pacific Northwest Corridor between Seattle, WA and Portland, OR. 
This is made possible by FRA and freight railroad approval of Amtrak's 
Talgo train equipment, allowing the tilting feature of the equipment to 
be used for faster speeds around curves. The faster schedules will 
allow the equipment to be used more efficiently--three Talgo 
frequencies will be operated with the same amount of equipment as was 
needed for two before.
    Amtrak is also planning to add a fifth weekly frequency to the 
Texas Eagle. As with the fourth frequency, it will operate the entire 
distance between Chicago and Los Angeles.
    5. October 1998.--Pending freight railroad approval, Amtrak is 
planning fifth and sixth daily, state-supported frequencies for the 
Capitols between San Jose, CA and Sacramento, CA.
    Also pending freight railroad approval, Amtrak is planning to add a 
fifth daily, state-supported frequency to the San Joaquins. It would 
operate between Bakersfield, CA and Sacramento, CA.
    Question. Please list the loans made to Amtrak in fiscal year 1997 
and thus far in fiscal year 1998 (through March 31). Please include 
information on the lending institution, amount of loan, repayment 
period, and interest rate.
    Answer. Several leveraged leases were closed with NationsBank, N.A. 
as owner participant, and Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW) as loan 
participant: (1) $33.8 million, 20 years, 5.5805 percent, closed 12/23/
96; (2) $18.2 million, 19 years, 5.5946 percent, closed 3/27/97; and 
(3) $49.4 million, 20 years, 5.521 percent, closed 6/26/97.
    A $52 million leveraged lease was closed 12/23/97, with a term of 
20 years; an interest rate of 5.5766 percent; Norlease, Inc. as owner 
participant; and KfW as loan participant.
    A $65 million leveraged lease was closed 3/27/97, with a term of 19 
years; an interest rate of 5.6961 percent; U.S. Bancorp Leasing & 
Financial as owner participant; and KfW and ING Lease (Ireland) B.V. as 
loan participants.
    Two leveraged leases were closed with BA Leasing & Capital 
Corporation as owner participant and KfW, Columbine Life Insurance 
Company, and Security Life of Denver Insurance Company as loan 
participants: (1) $13 million, 17 years, 6.3412 percent, closed 6/27/
97; and (2) $44.2 million, 17 years, 5.91795 percent, closed 10/17/97.
    A $5.6 million term loan was closed 6/3/97, with a term of two 
years and one month, and the State of Texas as lender. Interest is 
floating monthly, based on rate of interest earned by the State of 
Texas on funds invested during that month.
    A $16,671,400 leveraged lease was closed 12/30/97, with a term of 
18 years; an interest rate of 6.4341 percent; and GE Capital 
Corporation as owner participant.
    A $3,802,700 leveraged lease was closed 12/30/97, with a term of 15 
years; an interest rate of 5.5986 percent; and GE Capital Corporation 
as owner participant.
    A $96,534,529 leveraged lease was closed 12/31/97, with a term of 
20 years; an interest rate of 5.598 percent; GE Capital Corporation as 
owner participant; and Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., American Re-
Insurance Co., NAC Reinsurance Co., Universal Underwriters Insurance 
Co., Chartwell Reinsurance Corp., Everest Reinsurance Co., and Fidelity 
& Deposit Co. of Maryland as loan participants.
    A $32 million leveraged lease was closed 3/27/98, with a term of 17 
years; and interest rate of 4.6906 percent; NationsBank, N.A. as owner 
participant; and KfW and Columbine Life Insurance Company as loan 
participants.
    A $700 million loan was closed 12/2/97, with a term of 20 years 
after final delivery date of high speed trainsets and locomotives; a 
floating interest rate based on six-month LIBOR plus 75 basis points; 
and Export Development Corporation and MBK Rail Finance Corporation as 
lenders.
    A $120 million loan was closed 12/2/97, with a term of 20 years 
after Commitment Termination Date but no later than 4/31/2022; a 
floating interest rate based on six-month LIBOR plus 90 basis points; 
and Export Development Corporation and MBK Rail Finance Corporation as 
lenders.
    A $170 million short-term revolver was closed 12/18/97, with a term 
of 364 days and a floating interest rate based on either LIBOR plus 40 
basis points or the Alternate Base Rate (usually Prime). The bank group 
providing this loan consists of Bank of America, Bank of Tokyo-
Mitsubishi, Chase Manhattan, First National Bank of Maryland, 
Industrial Bank of Japan, NationsBank, and CIBC, Inc.
    Question. Please inform the Committee of any pending bids by 
private companies to purchase Amtrak lines or run Amtrak operations.
    Answer. Amtrak is not aware of any pending bids by private 
companies to purchase or to run Amtrak operations, at this time.
    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the Amtrak 
Reform Council, and summarize the council's scope of responsibility 
under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act.
    Answer. As of today, eight of the eleven Amtrak Reform Council 
(ARC) members have been appointed. Majority Leader Trent Lott appointed 
Gil Carmichael, Joseph Vranich and Paul M. Weyrich. Senate Minority 
Leader Tom Daschle appointed Donald R. Sweitzer. Speaker of the House 
Newt Gingrich appointed Christine Todd Whitman, Bruce Chapman and Chris 
Gleason. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt appointed S. Lee Kling. 
Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater is automatically an ARC 
member, as designated by law, leaving the Administration two 
appointments to make--one to represent rail labor, and one to represent 
rail management.
    The Amtrak Reform Council was created to evaluate Amtrak's 
performance, make recommendations to Amtrak for achieving further cost 
containment and productivity improvements, and financial reforms. The 
Council will present an annual report to Congress on Amtrak's progress 
and make legislative recommendations.
    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the 
appointment of the new Amtrak Reform Board. What time sensitive trigger 
mechanisms are included in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act 
provisions regarding appointment and confirmation of board members?
    Answer. Nominations for the Amtrak Reform Board have not yet been 
sent to Congress by the Administration.
    As stated in Public Law 105-134, the Amtrak Reform Board ``shall 
assume the responsibilities of the Board of Directors of Amtrak by 
March 31, 1998, or as soon thereafter as at least four members have 
been appointed and qualified. The Board appointed under prior law shall 
be abolished when the Reform Board assumes such responsibilities''. If 
the Reform Board has not assumed the responsibilities of the Board of 
Directors before July 1, 1998, all provisions for the authorization of 
appropriations under the amendments for fiscal year 1999 and thereafter 
shall cease to be effective.
    Question. How many people are employed by Amtrak? Please provide a 
table or chart divided by SBU's, showing all employment centers and 
number of employees at each center.
    Answer.
                                                        Fiscal year 1998
        SBU                                                    personnel
Corp/SVC......................................................   2,814.0
Intercity.....................................................   5,975.0
Northeast corridor............................................  12,355.0
West..........................................................   2,729.0
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

  Total.......................................................  23,873.0

Actuals as of February 28, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
    Question. The Taxpayer Relief Act authorized $2.3 billion in 
capital expenditures. What has been Amtrak's approach to working with 
the States to identify projects of mutual interest and to leverage non-
Amtrak matching funds?
    Answer. A key criterion in evaluating capital projects continues to 
be leveraging non-Amtrak funds. Each of the Strategic Business Units 
seeks projects which are of mutual benefit to Amtrak and to the state 
partnering on the project. The policy framework that has been developed 
to guide the investment of TRA funds places highly leveraged (greater 
than 3:1) projects as the highest priority. A number of projects have 
been approved which leverage such funds, including: the Oakland, CA 
maintenance facility ($30 million from the state of California, $7 
million Amtrak), the King Street Station Intermodal Facility in 
Seattle, WA ($16.25 million state and local partners, $5 million 
Amtrak), and the Salem, OR Multimodal Facility ($3.7 million state and 
local funds, $1 million Amtrak funds).
    Question. USDOT submitted a report to Congress in September of 1997 
entitled ``High Speed Ground Transportation for America'' and therein 
identified commercially feasible high-speed rail corridors, and, in 
fact, the report praises the Southeast Corridor from Washington to 
Charlotte:

          ``The average trip would be longer and generate more revenue 
        than on any other illustrative route, including California 
        North/South . . . Every Southeast Corridor traveler bound for 
        New York City must traverse some 200 Northeast Corridor route-
        miles as well, with potentially lucrative revenue consequences 
        for the HSGT operator . . . In light of these preliminary 
        results, the Southeast Corridor states and Amtrak might 
        consider jointly exploring the incremental economics of a wide 
        range of Southeast Corridor scenarios (including various 
        routing and segmentation alternatives) as extensions of 
        prospective Northeast Corridor services.''

In light of this economic opportunity, what actions has Amtrak taken or 
expect to take to extend the NEC to Charlotte?
    Answer. The logical extension of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) 
should be south to Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte and eventually other 
southern markets. Connecting the NEC and the Southeast Corridor, and 
having through service between Charlotte and New York City, would take 
intercity high-speed rail to a new level. Achieving this goal requires 
a significant, multi-year financial commitment, but it would clearly 
have significant benefits for the traveling public, Amtrak, and the 
states of Virginia and North Carolina. Amtrak and the North Carolina 
Department of Transportation have recently started to develop a joint 
work plan in order to more expeditiously progress the Southeast 
Corridor High-Speed Rail Program.
    The work plan is in phases, to achieve high-speed rail in 
increments. In the first phase, the key element of this plan would be 
the joint acquisition of higher speed rail passenger equipment. The use 
of this type of equipment would reduce travel time without the need for 
significant improvements to the track and signal systems.
    Another element of the work plan is to establish a three-way 
partnership with North Carolina, Amtrak and the State of Virginia. 
Clearly, any southward extension of the NEC would be more successful 
with the support of Virginia.
    The establishment of a partnership with the freight railroads 
(specifically, Norfolk Southern and CSX) is also key to the work plan. 
Neither Amtrak nor the State of North Carolina owns the track and other 
infrastructure between Washington, D.C., and Raleigh, and thus it would 
be difficult to upgrade that trackage without freight railroad support.
    Finally, funding agreements for long-term equipment purchases and 
long-term infrastructure improvements must be reached by all involved 
parties. The ultimate goal of a two-hour trip time between Raleigh and 
Charlotte and a high-speed through service between New York and North 
Carolina cannot be achieved without major infrastructure improvements 
and new technology.
    In addition, Amtrak will be reviewing the southeastern markets to 
develop a long-term vision for maximizing its potential in the 
marketplace. This market analysis will determine how Amtrak can be 
relevant in the marketplace, how it will reinforce the goals of our 
state partnership, and what is the expected return-on-investment.
    Question. I am told that the North Carolina Secretary of 
Transportation, Norris Tolson, wrote to Amtrak to ask that their state-
sponsored services--the Carolinian and Piedmont be included in the NEC 
strategic business unit. What action do you envision taking on this 
request and when do you intend to act?
    Answer. On September 4, 1997, David King, the Deputy Secretary of 
the North Carolina Department of Transportation wrote to former Amtrak 
Chairman and President Thomas Downs and asked that Amtrak consider 
moving the North Carolina service from the Amtrak Intercity strategic 
business unit (SBU) to the NEC. Mr. Downs responded to that request in 
October 1997 and informed the State that for the foreseeable future, 
the state-supported Carolinian and Piedmont trains would continue to be 
operated by Amtrak Intercity. We believe that from an operational 
standpoint the current North Carolina service fits largely into an 
Intercity profile. At present, all Amtrak trains which operate in or 
through North Carolina are operated by the Intercity SBU. These include 
the two state-supported trains as well as four long-distance trains 
operating between New York and Florida or New York and New Orleans.
    However, Mr. Downs also agreed that as Amtrak considers long-term 
investment and service prospects for the corporation, a much closer 
association between the Southeast Corridor and the Northeast Corridor 
would be mutually beneficial. To that end he directed the NEC SBU to 
take the lead in long-term planning for the development of the 
extension. It is clear to us that the logical extension of the NEC 
should be south to Richmond and Charlotte, enhancing Amtrak's 
connection with the Charlotte-to-Raleigh federally designated high-
speed rail corridor. Consequently, representatives from both the NEC 
and the Intercity business units recently met with the State of North 
Carolina to develop a joint work plan to progress the Southeast 
Corridor High-Speed Rail Program. The NEC and Amtrak Intercity will 
work together jointly on all planning for future expansion of services 
in and to North Carolina. In this manner, Amtrak plans to tap the 
resources of both businesses units to ensure the best possible 
provision of service to North Carolina.
    Question. What is your timetable for making higher speed 
improvements between Richmond and Charlotte?
    Answer. Amtrak has recently developed a joint work plan with the 
State of North Carolina to progress the Southeast Corridor High-Speed 
Rail Program. High-speed improvements between Richmond and Charlotte 
are part of the long-term plan for that program and are phased in, 
first through possible equipment acquisition or leasing combined with 
state proposed infrastructure improvements, and ultimately through 
extensive infrastructure improvements and new equipment technology.
    Amtrak owns the track between New York and Washington, D.C. North 
Carolina has recently purchased the North Carolina Railroad Company, a 
railroad which owns the tracks between Raleigh and Charlotte. However, 
neither Amtrak nor the States of Virginia or North Carolina owns any of 
the right-of-way between Washington, D.C. and Raleigh. It will require 
us to work with the freight railroads to make right-of-way improvements 
or acquisitions. Thus, the development of partnerships between Amtrak, 
the states and the freight railroads will be a crucial element and a 
key factor for success in the plans to implement higher speed rail to 
the Southeast.
    In considering the way to allocate costs, Amtrak believes that 
right-of-way improvements are best funded by the states, since they 
represent an asset that remains within the state. Amtrak believes it 
can bring the greatest value to the partnership through funding 
equipment acquisitions.
    Question. The Coalition of Northeastern Governors, at the request 
of North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt, resolved to support the efforts to 
extend the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project through Richmond to 
Charlotte and further suggested that the corridor be renamed the 
``Atlantic Coast Corridor''. How has this resolution figured into your 
request for continued NECIP funding?
    Answer. Amtrak did not request separate NECIP funding for fiscal 
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. Amtrak requested a $621 million capital 
grant to be used throughout the system, in a manner most beneficial to 
the corporation's long term goals and without federally designated 
geographical constraints. In addition, Amtrak does not own the 
infrastructure south of Washington, D.C., making it unlike most of the 
Northeast Corridor.
    However, that does not mean that Amtrak intends to ignore the high-
speed rail effort through Richmond to Charlotte. Quite to the contrary. 
Amtrak has already met with the State of North Carolina and the 
Commonwealth of Virginia to begin to plan the improvements and 
equipment necessary to extend the NEC's high-speed rail corridor 
southward. Both Amtrak and North Carolina intend to spend significant 
amounts on the project, modeled on similar arrangements with other 
states on the Northeast Corridor. For example, Amtrak has implemented 
an ambitious $250 million joint funding project with the State of New 
Jersey, with each entity investing $25 million a year for five years, 
for capital improvements, and similar joint benefit/jointly funded 
efforts are underway in Delaware and Maryland.
    In addition, Amtrak's NECIP project has direct benefits for the 
Richmond to Charlotte extension. The expertise developed through the 
NECIP project is already being drawn upon for the North Carolina and 
Virginia high-speed rail effort, providing invaluable experience and 
knowledge, as well as technology and safety standards development.

                         Conclusion of hearings

    Senator Shelby. This hearing of the subcommittee will now 
be recessed and we will next meet on Thursday, April 2, at 10 
a.m. in Dirksen 138 for another installation of the 
subcommittee's hearings on aviation competition. At that 
hearing we will explore airline ticketing prices.
    That concludes the subcommittee's regular budget hearings 
for this fiscal year. Thank you so much.
    [Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., Tuesday, March 24, the hearings 
were concluded and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 
subject to the call of the Chair.]


         MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO CONCLUSION OF HEARING

    [Clerk's note.--The following material was not presented at 
the hearing, but was submitted to the subcommittee for 
inclusion in the record subsequent to the hearing:]
   Prepared Statement of Ross B. Capon, Executive Director, National 
                   Association of Railroad Passengers
    Thank you for the opportunity to file this statement. Our non-
partisan Association--whose members are individuals--has worked since 
1967 towards development of a modern rail passenger network in the U.S.
                                summary
  --We join the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of 
        Transportation in strongly supporting the Amtrak budget 
        request. This is the first time I can remember those three 
        organizations supporting an identical budget request.
  --Usage of Amtrak trains is growing for the second straight year; the 
        turn-around is well over a year old and reflects growing 
        confidence in train travel and, in many cases, growing problems 
        with other modes of transportation. Intercity passenger 
        revenues are growing for the third straight year.
  --The public at large favors retention and improvement of the 
        nation's intercity rail passenger network, as reflected in new 
        nationwide and State of New York polls.
  --Notwithstanding extensive talk about ``alternatives to Amtrak,'' we 
        believe an Amtrak shutdown would result in loss of most or all 
        intercity passenger rail in the U.S.
           1. the ``omb/dot/amtrak''-supported budget request
    The Administration and Amtrak are supporting an approach to 
Amtrak's appropriations which eliminates operating grants as a separate 
category. However, they propose to use appropriated capital funds for 
any type of ``maintenance''--including some categories heretofore 
considered operating expenses. Amtrak believes that with the annual 
appropriations proposed by the Administration (including $621 million 
in fiscal year 1999), the right to spend 40 percent the first year and 
60 percent the second, and the broader definition of ``capital,'' it 
can survive and ultimately prosper.
    The broader definition of ``capital'' currently applies to federal 
transit funds, where the justification apparently is to remove any 
incentive to do wasteful, unnecessary equipment rebuilds (or otherwise 
spend more money than necessary) because capital grants are more 
readily available than operating grants. A similar rationale presumably 
applies here to Amtrak, although our support for this concept equally 
stems from the remarkable consensus that now exists among OMB, DOT and 
Amtrak.
    The Administration also proposes to fund Amtrak out of the Highway 
Trust Fund. While we have no problem with that in principle, we fear 
that--as in years past--this aspect of the Administration's budget 
proposal is not viable. We certainly do not want to see Amtrak fall 
apart because of disagreement over this.
    High speed rail.--We strongly support full funding of the grade 
crossing program for high speed corridors. The Senate-passed ISTEA bill 
has $5 million a year in contract authority but $15 million a year in 
authorizations for appropriations. The House-passed version has these 
annual funding levels for high speed corridors: $10.25 million for 
grade-crossing work; $25 million for Swift Act technology development; 
and $10 million for Swift Act corridor planning. The House bill also 
has earmarked funds to upgrade corridors in Georgia, Oregon, Virginia 
and elsewhere. Most if not all of this work will enhance the economics 
of Amtrak's operations.
    At the same time, we are concerned that the vast expansion in 
highway infrastructure funding now being contemplated not come at the 
expense of intercity passenger rail. As discussed below, ticket 
purchases and polls both show the American people would not favor such 
a trade-off. Senate approval of the Lautenberg-Lott ``sense-of-the-
Senate'' amendment during consideration of the Senate budget resolution 
is another indication of the strength of support Amtrak enjoys.
                      2. amtrak in the marketplace
    Fiscal year 1997 passenger-miles (5.2 billion) were up 2.3 percent 
over the fiscal year 1996 level. For the first five months of fiscal 
year 1998 (October-February) passenger-miles are 5.0 percent above the 
level for the year-earlier months.
    Fiscal year 1997 passenger-related revenues--a record $1.034 
billion--were 7.2 percent above the fiscal year 1996 level, which in 
turn was 6.0 percent above the fiscal year 1995 level. The 1997 level 
was 6.7 percent above the previous record ($969 million in fiscal year 
1993), even though Amtrak operated about 8.6 percent fewer train-miles 
in the more recent year (32 million vs. 35 million in fiscal year 
1993).
    Figures in the above paragraph include state payments. This seems 
reasonable because the significant increase in state payments is one 
reflection of the value Americans put on Amtrak services. State 
payments rose in fiscal year 1997 for the eighth consecutive year; the 
$70 million level was up 9.3 percent from the fiscal year 1996 level 
and up 775 percent from $8 million in fiscal year 1989.
    However, it may be informative to restate the passenger-related-
revenue paragraph excluding state payments. The fiscal year 1997 
level--$964 million--was 7.0 percent above the fiscal year 1996 level, 
which in turn was 3.1 percent above the fiscal year 1995 level.
    Here are the percentage changes (in each case, from the same period 
a year earlier) in total Amtrak revenues and expenses:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Percent--
                  Fiscal year                  -------------------------
                                                  Revenues     Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 (five months)............................         +5.3         -4.9
1997..........................................         +7.7         +5.1
1996..........................................         +3.9         +0.6
1995..........................................         +5.9         -7.4
    (Note 1)..................................  ...........         +2.6
1994..........................................         +0.7        +16.7
    (Note 1)..................................  ...........         +5.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note 1 ``alternate'' figures exclude a $244 million ``one-time charge''
  from fiscal year 1994 expenses.)

    These figures show a favorable relationship between revenue and 
expense trends in each year since fiscal year 1994, that is, revenues 
grew more than expenses and in some cases expenses actually declined. 
We expect the Congress ultimately to agree that whether Amtrak 
literally reaches self-sufficiency in 2003 or not is less important 
than reasonable assurances that Amtrak is efficiently managed and is 
meeting a real need.
    We remind the committee about the heavy use of long-distance trains 
by lower-income individuals and the prospects for further improving the 
economic performance of these trains through Amtrak's express 
initiative. In addition, of course, the Taxpayer Relief Act capital 
investment funds should enhance the economic performance of all 
services, as well as help leverage more non-federal capital investment 
in passenger rail by allowing Amtrak to match contributions from states 
and other parties.
    We believe Amtrak cannot and should not try to abandon more routes. 
We look forward to Amtrak's planned return to Las Vegas, Nevada, next 
year. We expect to see other service additions, particularly in 
connection with Amtrak's express initiative.
                         3. amtrak in the polls
    An October 27, 1997, nationwide Gallup Poll sponsored by CNN and 
USA Today asked whether ``the federal government should continue to 
provide funding for the cost of running Amtrak, in order to ensure that 
the US has a national train service, or the federal government should 
stop funding Amtrak, even if that means the train service could go out 
of business if it doesn't operate profitably on their own.'' Favoring 
continued funding were 69 percent of respondents, with 26 percent 
against (and 6 percent other responses).
    A poll conducted between September 29 and October 5, 1997, by the 
Marist College Institute for Public Opinion (Poughkeepsie), found 
strong support throughout New York State for passenger rail. The poll 
was commissioned by the Empire State Passengers Association and the 
Empire Corridor Rail Task Force. The poll found that 97 percent of the 
644 registered voters interviewed felt intercity train service (``such 
as Amtrak which is mostly used for trips of 75 miles or more'') should 
be ``improved and modernized'' rather than eliminated. Also, 82 percent 
felt ``improved and modernized intercity passenger train service 
throughout New York State'' was just as important as (70 percent) or 
more important than (12 percent) ``having good highways and airports.'' 
The poll found that 89 percent of those who made a train trip over 75 
miles in the previous 12 months (or a member of their household) would 
consider the train for their next trip
                         4. an amtrak shutdown
    It is unlikely that Congress would extend to any other party the 
rights Amtrak acquired when it took intercity passenger service over 
from the private railroads and relieved them of their intercity 
passenger losses. These rights include the right of access to tracks 
and the right to pay for that access on the basis of incremental rather 
than fully allocated costs. (Amtrak actually makes substantial payments 
above incremental costs, keyed to on-time performance incentives, and 
has offered the freight railroads the opportunity to earn even more as 
part of Amtrak's express initiative.)
    When considering private, specialized operations such as the 
Florida Fun Train and the American Orient Express, it is important to 
note that these technically are Amtrak charter trains. In other words, 
Amtrak--not the private operators--negotiates with the freight 
railroads. Absent the Rail Passenger Service Act, the private operators 
likely would either be denied access outright or would face prohibitive 
charges from railroads not anxious for this type of traffic.
    Thank you for considering our views.


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1999

                              ----------                              

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY AGENCIES NOT APPEARING FOR FORMAL HEARINGS

    [Clerk's note.--The following agencies of the Department of 
Transportation and independent related agencies did not appear 
before the subcommittee this year. Chairman Shelby requested 
these agencies to submit testimony in support of their fiscal 
year 1999 budget request. Those statements and answers to 
questions submitted by the chairman follow:]

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                     Federal Highway Administration

            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                limitation on general operating expenses
    Question. Please explain in extensive detail your plans to allocate 
GOE funds for each R, D, and T activity based on the authorization 
provided in Public Law 105-130.
    Answer. The FHWA will manage the General Operating Expenses (LGOE) 
funding provided by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997 
(STEA) to cover the first three quarters of fiscal year 1998. This 
strategy makes almost $46 million available for research and technology 
activities. This level allows priority research and technology 
commitments to continue, defers new starts, and allows essential 
research and technology to continue for three quarters.

                        [In thousands of dollars]

        Research and Technology                                   Amount

Safety............................................................ 4,566
Pavements......................................................... 2,920
Structures........................................................ 2,835
Environment....................................................... 1,974
Real Estate Services....................................................
Policy............................................................ 2,452
Planning.......................................................... 3,839
Motor Carrier..................................................... 3,654
Tech. Assessment and Deployment................................... 8,435
R&T Technical Support............................................. 2,084
ADP Support Services for TFHRC....................................   610
National Advanced Driver Simulator................................ 6,100
Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP)............................. 6,420
Lake Tahoe Weather Information System.............................    75
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      LGOE R&T programs...........................................45,964

    In addition, the STEA made other funds available for research and 
technology activities. These funds included:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

                                                                  Amount

Intelligent Transportation Systems................................47,000
Operation Lifesaver...............................................   150
Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Programs..................... 1,000
National Highway Institute........................................ 2,500
Education and Training Program.................................... 3,000
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Other R&T programs..........................................53,650

    Question. Did FHWA's allocation for those interim funds specify a 
significant decrease in M&C costs? If so, what significant or adverse 
impact did this have on the vitality of the R, D, and T program?
    Answer. The R&T Technical Support (formerly referred to as M&C) was 
allocated $2,084,000 from the STEA. This amount has been used only for 
such critical needs as the extension of some support contracts to carry 
our R, D, and T program through July 1998. We have also delayed some of 
our other commitments, such as our work with the Small Business 
Innovation Research Program (SBIR). However, after July, we will run 
out of funds for our support contracts and we will either have to 
terminate the ongoing contracts or not renew those that are ending. 
Also, we will be unable to fund our commitment to the SBIR Program.
    Question. Why couldn't FHWA adjust permanently to a reduced M&C 
expense?
    Answer. As indicated in the previous answer, the funds we have 
received so far in fiscal year 1998 for R&T Technical Support have been 
used to fund only those critical needs to keep us operating until July. 
We are estimating that we will need the full requested amount for R&T 
Technical Support in fiscal year 1998. The SBIR Program assessment is a 
fixed amount that must be paid each year. Our funding commitment to the 
Transportation Research Board remains strong and must be maintained. 
With our increase emphasis on dissemination of our research and 
technology information in electronic format, and the need for increased 
service to our customers, it is difficult to see how we could 
significantly reduce our R&T Technical Support funding.
    Question. By office, including the JPO, please specify the expected 
allocation of personnel reductions in fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal 
year 1999.
    Answer. The following table reflects the current distribution of 
FTE within the FHWA to meet the NPR targets for fiscal year 1998 and 
fiscal year 1999. The distribution for fiscal year 1999 will be 
adjusted after implementation plans for our Field restructuring efforts 
and Headquarters review are completed later this summer.

                             FTE ALLOCATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal                Fiscal
              Organization               year 1998  Reduction  year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrator's Office.................         18          1         17
ITS Joint Project Office...............         17          1         16
Program Quality Coordination...........          6  .........          6
Public Affairs.........................          7          1          6
Chief Counsel..........................         36          1         35
Civil Rights...........................         18          1         17
Policy.................................         86          3         83
Research and Development...............        106          4        102
Program Development....................        202          6        196
Safety and Systems Applications........        108          3        105
Administration.........................        254          8        246
Federal Lands..........................        583         18        565
Motor Carriers.........................        678         18        660
Region One.............................        209          6        203
Region Three...........................        161          4        157
Region Four............................        232          7        225
Region Five............................        206          6        200
Region Six.............................        148          4        144
Region Seven...........................        104          3        101
Region Eight...........................        133          3        130
Region Nine............................        134          4        130
Region Ten.............................        105          3        102
Career Development and Other Positions.        105          1        104
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................      3,656        106      3,550
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please discuss how FHWA will comply with each of the 
directives in bill and conference reports relevant to the fiscal year 
1998 appropriations act.
    Answer. The FHWA will comply with each of the directives in bill 
and conference reports. In the case of required reports to the 
committees, the FHWA has already submitted a number of reports and will 
complete all outstanding reports as requested. In the case of earmarked 
funds, the FHWA intends to comply with the funding directives provided 
the Congress authorizes the necessary level of funds in reauthorization 
legislation before the close of this fiscal year. Should an inadequate 
level of funds be provided by the Congress, the FHWA intends to seek 
further guidance from the committees.
    Question. Please provide separate tables breaking down 
administrative expenses into PC and B, permanent change of station, 
travel, communication, ADP, non-mandatory awards, and other 
administrative categories for each of the last four years and the 
fiscal year 1999 request. Please present a table showing net 
administrative expenses for each of the last four years and the fiscal 
year 1999 request.
    Answer. See the following table showing net administrative expenses 
for each of the last four years and the fiscal year 1999 request.

                        GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES--FEDERAL-AID AND MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
                                                 [In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1995       1996       1997       1998       1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits....................................   $194,793   $200,659   $206,621   $215,537   $218,031
Performance Awards.......................................      1,272      1,298      1,084      1,199      1,233
PCS Moves................................................      9,477      6,934      6,533      6,200      8,900
Travel...................................................     15,787     12,398     13,811     12,380     12,729
Transportation...........................................        521        557        549        568        590
Rental Payments to GSA...................................     16,619     17,601     17,408     17,480     17,922
Other Rent and Comm. and Util............................      8,679     10,387      8,917      9,764      9,984
Printing and Graphics....................................      4,447      3,110      3,138        504        647
ADP Services.............................................     20,682     16,862     16,698     20,245     24,844
Other Services...........................................     16,731     14,059     13,838     18,183     21,100
Supplies.................................................      3,725      3,430      3,666      2,354      2,354
Equipment................................................      8,375      4,393      4,719      7,140      8,110
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................    301,107    291,688    296,982    311,554    326,444
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES--FEDERAL-AID
                                                 [In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1995       1996       1997       1998       1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits....................................   $157,979   $162,766   $167,977   $175,365   $177,530
Performance Awards.......................................      1,058      1,093        891        996      1,023
PCS Moves................................................       8143      6,500      5,967      5,800      8,200
Travel...................................................     11,167      9,476      9,660      9,273      9,273
Transportation...........................................        511        555        548        556        556
Rental Payments to GSA...................................     16,619     17,601     17,408     17,480     17,922
Other Rent and Comm. and Util............................      8,317     10,117      8,512      9,369      9,589
Printing and Graphics....................................      4,404      3,039      3,072     \1\ 89         89
ADP Services.............................................     17,175     14,514     15,356     16,615     21,214
Other Services...........................................     15,235     13,055     11,649     16,629     17,283
Supplies.................................................      3,321      3,078      3,181      2,079      2,079
Equipment................................................      7,088      3,894      3,811      6,303      6,303
      Total..............................................    251,016    245,688    248,032    260,554    271,061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for Printing and Graphics are also captured in TASC within ``Other Services.''


                                GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
                                                 [In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1995       1996       1997       1998       1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits....................................    $36,814    $37,893    $38,644    $40,172    $40,501
Performance Awards.......................................        214        205        193        203        210
PCS Moves................................................      1,334        434        566        400        700
Travel...................................................      4,620      2,922      4,151      3,107      3,456
Transportation...........................................         10          2          1         12         34
Rental Payments to GSA...................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
Other Rent and Comm. and Util............................        362        270        405        395        395
Printing and Graphics....................................         43         71         66        415        558
ADP Services.............................................      3,507      2,348      1,342      3,630      3,630
Other Services...........................................      1,496      1,004      2,189      1,554      3,817
Supplies.................................................        404        352        485        275        275
Equipment................................................      1,287        499        908        837      1,807
      Total..............................................     50,091     46,000     48,950     51,000     55,383
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table describing how you have reduced 
administrative expenses, addressing each of the categories mentioned in 
the previous question for fiscal year 1998 in light of the interim 
funding limitation.
    Answer. The following chart from FHWA has made an interim 
distribution of funds to its Leadership Team for administrative 
expenses as a result of the limited funds for general operating 
expenses under the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997. This 
distribution of funds was based on two major assumptions. The first was 
that the Congress would enact authorizing legislation before the end of 
this fiscal year and second, that the levels enacted would allow a full 
distribution of general operating expense funds up to the limitation 
set in the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act of 1998. 
Based on these two assumptions, the FHWA has deferred making funds 
available for payments of bills to other government agencies, such as 
rent payments to GSA, printing bills to GPO, and workman's compensation 
payments to the Department of Labor. We have deferred a half-of-a-
year's worth of payments to the Transportation Administrative Services 
Center for what will be a full-year's worth of services. We have also 
deferred the necessary acquisition of IRM equipment and office 
furnishings to the fourth quarter. The interim funding allocations in 
the table below do not reflect a reduction in administrative expenses 
for the year, but primarily a deferral of payments or a postponement of 
activities.

                       GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
                             [In thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal Year 1998 Interim
                                                  Allocation
                                     -----------------------------------
                                       Federal-
                                        aid and                  Motor
                                         motor     Federal-     carrier
                                        carrier       aid       safety
                                        safety
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits...............    $174,307    $141,360     $32,947
Performance Awards..................       1,199         996         203
PCS Moves...........................       3,250       3,000         250
Travel..............................       8,418       6,918       1,500
Transportation......................         424         415           9
Rental Payments to GSA..............       4,400       4,400  ..........
Other Rent and Comm. and Util.......       7,009       6,989          20
Printing and Graphics...............          86          66          20
ADP Services........................      11,489       9,674       1,815
Other Services......................      13,501      12,405       1,096
Supplies............................       1,757       1,551         206
Equipment...........................         611         200         411
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................     226,451     187,974      38,477
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please break down the $7.528 million requested for 
``other services'' on page 34.
    Answer. Listed below is a break down of the $7.528 million 
requested in the fiscal year 1999 Budget:
Federal-aid:
            TASC: (+4,692)
    This requested increase will cover Transportation Administrative 
Service Center (TASC) charges as estimated by the Department for common 
services.
            Other: (+561)
    The requested increase is required to:
    Training: (+$200).--As FHWA began strategically planning for a 
post-ISTEA era, one of our goals was to create a fundamental cultural 
change both within FHWA and the transportation community as a whole 
that would provide a foundation for the next century. One of the 
cornerstones for the future was a strong shift of resources and energy 
to innovation--innovation that would provide for a greater return on 
our investment. For FHWA, this change would also move us from a 
traditional oversight role to one of proactive leadership, and make 
technology, in the broadest sense, a leading element in the 
transportation system for the 21st century.
    The requested increase of $200,000 in fiscal year 1999 will provide 
an expansion of training and development to support these changes 
within the FHWA. Additional funding is necessary to equip FHWA 
employees with the technical and non-technical knowledge and skills to 
effectively support the agency's roles as partners to the states and 
resources for technical expertise and technology transfer. Mechanisms 
for obtaining the needed training and development will include formal 
training, academic and institute-based training, and enhanced on-the-
job learning and development. Much of the data for projections of 
increased needs stems from a nationwide needs assessment conducted in 
1997 which highlights areas which the FHWA must focus on. They include:
  --Strengthening technical expertise in core engineering and 
        transportation technologies;
  --Strengthening technical expertise to support expanding roles in 
        safety, environment and planning;
  --Developing skills in emerging technologies and in integrated 
        systems support for intelligent transportation systems;
  --Developing expertise in innovative approaches to fiscal management 
        and financing of transportation programs and projects;
  --Developing strong partnership skills throughout the agency to 
        strengthen relationships with the States and local 
        transportation organizations (communications, interpersonal and 
        management skills, data analysis and measurement); and
  --Strengthening skills in information technology throughout the 
        agency.
    Electronic Grants System: (+$200).--This increase will allow FHWA 
to assist the Department in demonstrating the feasibility of using the 
Internet to process grant applications and test security systems.
    Acquisition Training: (+$36).--This increase will allow FHWA to 
assist the Department in meeting the guidelines in The Clinger-Cohen 
Act of Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), formerly known as the 
Federal Acquisition Reform Act. This law requires Federal agencies to 
include funding within their budgets for acquisition training.
    Vulnerability Studies: (+$125).--This increase will allow FHWA to 
do a pilot test on one region of the bridge inventory system. This will 
be conducted using a PC with friendly interface and querying ability. 
This database will be tested with one of the states in the region to do 
automatic uploading and downloading of information. This database will 
also be updated with bridges and tunnels in that region, and linked 
with both tunnel and GIS information with other modes and navigable 
waterways.
Motor Carrier Safety: (+$2,275)
    The fiscal year 1999 budget includes five categories of initiatives 
which have needs for funding in the Other Services category. The 
following provides a breakdown of those funds by initiative:
    Safety Programs Enhancement.--$925,000 is requested to provide 
contractual support for industry forums; a pilot study on ways to 
reduce the possibility of ``high risk'' hazardous materials carriers 
being involved in crashes; and support for a performance based grant 
workshop.
    Office Support and Efficiency.--$135,000 is requested to provide 
contractual support for conversion of division office files to 
electronic record keeping and to provide for office design support for 
offices that will be renovated or relocated.
    Communications and Technical Assistance.--$440,000 is requested to 
develop and staff a driver listening post, convene a panel of experts 
to evaluate the impact of advances in technology and medical knowledge 
on current guidelines and advance development of the No-Zone message.
    Training Initiatives.--$325,000 is requested to provide a contract 
professional course developer at the National Training Center; develop 
a training course to educate State and Federal staff how to analyze and 
code the new National Governors' Association crash data elements; 
develop a training course to train the law enforcement community on the 
recommendations of a study on how to identify unsafe driving practices 
by automobile operators in the vicinity of heavy commercial vehicles.
    Systems Development.--$450,000 provides for contract staff to 
complete the ADP portion of the Unified Carrier Register; conduct a 
study to develop alternatives to downsize the Motor Carrier Management 
Information System and to develop a new Safety Fitness Rating 
Methodology based on recent program enhancements and information.
    Question. What is the empirical basis of the $860,000 request for 
additional travel funds on page 36?
    Answer.
Federal-aid: +500
    The requested increase is to cover the additional cost of 
relocating our employees as part of Permanent Change of Station moves. 
The FHWA is continuing to streamline and improve efficiency in response 
to the National Performance Review's objectives. As a result of those 
objectives, the FHWA will continue to restructure our organization to 
better serve customer needs, and implement the Congressional desire for 
the FHWA to restructure our field organization.
Motor Carrier Safety: +360
    The travel increase is to provide the funds necessary to implement 
new initiatives requested in the budget. Although the overall staff is 
reducing in numbers, there are increasing responsibilities which must 
be addressed therefore requiring additional travel for less numbers of 
staff.
    The additional travel will allow federal staff to: (1) In concert 
with State staff and contractors, evaluate the effect of adding an 
additional Safety Evaluation Area to SafeStat on Hazardous Materials, 
(2) Evaluate the progress of the performance based grants program, 
which will require travel to selected States (3) Evaluate how the 
Federal staff and state partners are implementing SafeStat, (4) Provide 
seminars to Federal, state and industry representatives on the new 
Automated Safety Assessment Program which is designed to electronically 
collect safety performance data from carriers who have little or no 
data and (5) Provide travel funds to enable Federal staff to conduct 
industry forums such as the second FHWA safety summit to be held in 
early fiscal year 1999.
    Question. Why does the amount of funds for printing need to 
increase by $143,000?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers has a many faceted approach to 
improving safety. One approach which we have found very valuable is 
education of drivers, carriers and the motoring public on how to 
improve safety before an incident occurs. To achieve this we have 
developed programs such as the No-Zone campaign along with various 
industry forums. To make this means of education effective we publish 
information brochures, conference materials, posters etc. to reach the 
intended audience. Since we have realized the successes of education 
campaigns over the past couple of years, the Office of Motor Carriers 
requests additional funds to support these printing initiatives.
    Question. During fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, how much 
money was subtracted from any R, D, and T activity to pay for any 
expenses related to new initiatives that were not presented in the 
budget justification?
    Answer. None
    Question. Please provide a table showing carryover funds for each 
of the last two years for each GOE funding area.
    Answer. See the following chart.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      1996 contract programs
                                                                 --------------------------------  1997 contract
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      programs
                                                                  1996 carryover  1997 carryover   carryover \2\
                                                                        \1\             \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research, Development and Technology....................       2,117,613          66,702       3,774,479
Intelligent Transportation Systems..............................       2,530,984               1         350,967
Long-Term Pavement Performance..................................         217,810  ..............  ..............
Tech. Assessment and Deployment.................................             590          26,002         299,926
Local Tech. Assistance Program..................................  ..............  ..............             771
National Highway Institute......................................  ..............         604,457         668,714
Minority Business Enterprise....................................  ..............          56,140          13,900
International Transportation....................................  ..............          40,898         168,116
Russia Technical Assistance.....................................  ..............           6,724           2,269
Rehab. of TFHRC.................................................  ..............  ..............              65
Federal Lands Contamination Site Clean-up.......................  ..............  ..............       1,774,458
Transportation Investment.......................................  ..............  ..............               4
Cost Allocation Study...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................       4,866,997         800,924       7,053,669
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carryover balance expire at the close of fiscal year 1998.
\2\ Carryover balances expire at the close of fiscal year 1999.


                            NO YEAR PROGRAMS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                          1996 carryover  1997 carryover
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research, Development and              1,664,369         538,438
 Technology.............................
Intelligent Transportation Systems......       2,161,251         510,657
Long-Term Pavement Performance..........          38,372  ..............
Tech. Assessment and Deployment.........          67,774          98,618
Local Tech. Assistance Program..........          71,347          72,757
National Highway Institute..............          70,269          89,391
Minority Business Enterprise............         560,624         243,095
International Transportation............          13,333           7,074
OJT Skill Training......................          89,787          62,108
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       4,737,126       1,622,138
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Funds available until expended.

    Question. In House Report No. 104-177, reprogramming guidelines 
state that Congressional approval is required for funding shifts of 10 
percent or more among programs, projects and activities.
    Answer. There were no funding shifts in fiscal year 1997 or thus 
far in fiscal year 1998 which fall within the reprogramming guidelines 
in House Report 104-177.
    Question. Please show the amounts, nature, and source of any 
funding shifts that were implemented in fiscal year 1997 and thus far 
in fiscal year 1998.
    Answer. There were no funding shifts in fiscal year 1997 or thus 
far in fiscal year 1998 which fall within the reprogramming guidelines 
in House Report 104-177.
    Question. In any area have you exceeded this 10 percent threshold 
without notification since that requirement went into effect?
    Answer. There were no funding shifts in fiscal year 1997 or thus 
far in fiscal year 1998 which fall within the reprogramming guidelines 
in House Report 104-177.
    Question. Please provide a table listing the number, purpose, and 
reimbursement for each of the foreign trips taken by each of the 
associate administrators.
    Answer. See the following chart.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Position                   Country                           Purpose                       Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Administrator for        Mexico..........  To participate in the Eighth Meeting of the           FHWA.
 Program Development.                                 Joint Working Committee (NAFTIA-related working
                                                      committee on border issues).
                                   Mexico..........  To participate in the North American                  FHWA.
                                                      Superhighway Summit of Mayors.
Associate Administrator for Motor  Canada..........  To attend Canadian Council on Motor Trucking          FHWA.
 Carriers.                                            Meeting.
Associate Administrator for        Portugal........  To give keynote presentation and participate in       FHWA.
 Research and Development.                            the Traffic Safety on Two Continents Conference.
                                   Canada..........  To make a presentation and attend the Concluding      FHWA.
                                                      Conference of the Organization for Economic
                                                      Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Dynamic
                                                      Interaction Vehicle Infrastructure Experiment
                                                      Program (DIVINE).
Associate Administrator for        Germany.........  To participate in the ITS World Congress              FHWA.
 Safety and Systems Applications.                     Meetings.
Associate Administrator for Pol-   Russia..........  To participate in PIARC Executive Committee           FHWA.
 icy.                                                 Meeting and Russian Federal Highway Service
                                                      meetings.
                                   Canada..........  International Road Federation World Meeting.....      FHWA.
Director, Intelligent              Spain...........  To serve as chairperson of the PIARC Committee        FHWA.
 Transportation Systems Joint                         on Intelligent Transportation.
 Program Office.
                                   Germany.........  To participate in the ITS World Congress              FHWA.
                                                      Meetings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Since there is a substantial reduction of FTE's proposed, 
why isn't there an associated reduction in travel, training, and 
transportation?
    Answer. The FHWA's total reduction in FTE in fiscal year 1999 is 
less than 3 percent over the fiscal year 1998 levels. Even with its 
shrinking workforce, FHWA's programs are growing and the focus of our 
efforts is changing. This change is moving us from a traditional 
oversight role to one of proactive leadership, with a focus on 
deployment of new technologies and technical service to State DOT's and 
our many other program partners. One of the cornerstones for future 
activities for the FHWA was a strong shift of resources and energy to 
innovation--innovation in technology, and innovation in program 
financing. This requires an expansion of our training and support 
efforts. Administrative funds are being used to equip FHWA employees 
with the technical knowledge and skills to effectively support the 
agency's roles as partners to the States along with resources for 
technical expertise and technology transfer. This includes 
strengthening technical expertise to support expanding roles in safety, 
environment and planning, and for developing skills in emerging 
technologies and integrated systems support for intelligent 
transportation systems.
    Furthermore, the buying power of our administrative funds are being 
eroded by the increases in travel and transportation rates. These 
include the increases which GSA is passing on to individual agencies 
for the mandatory use of alternate fuel vehicles, and the increasing 
costs related to the processing fees charges by the travel industry for 
air travel.
    Question. Please break down the $4.692 million increase requested 
for TASC on page 42.
    Answer. The following table provides a summary of the charges 
estimated, and incremental increases, for the Transportation 
Administrative Service Center.

  TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER--SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR
                   1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 1999 ESTIMATES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year--
             Service Area              ---------------------- Difference
                                           1998       1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worklife Wellness.....................        159        165          +6
Building Management...................      1,339      1,196         -56
Information Services..................      3,844      4,366        +525
Learning and Development..............        636        582         -54
Space Management......................      1,432        107      -1,325
Security Operations...................        614        576         -38
IT Systems Development................        337        454        +117
Telecommunications Operation..........      1,457      1,658        +201
TASC Computer Center..................      8,746     13,473      +4,850
Procurement Services..................  .........          3          +3
Human Resource Services...............        198         38        -160
DAFIS Operations and Other Support....      1,874      2,410        +623
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................     20,636     25,028      +4,692
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. For each item listed on pages 41-43, please show the 
amount appropriated in the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1997 base.
    Answer. See the following chart.

                                     FEDERAL-AID GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  General operating     General operating   Motor carrier safety
                                                 expenses and motor         expenses       ---------------------
                                                   carrier safety    ----------------------     Fiscal year--
                                               ----------------------     Fiscal year--    ---------------------
                                                    Fiscal year--    ----------------------
                                               ----------------------                          1997       1998
                                                   1997       1998       1997       1998     enacted    enacted
                                                 enacted    enacted    enacted    enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits.........................    216,109    220,765    176,127    180,065     39,982     40,700
Travel........................................     12,263     12,593      9,813      9,473      2,450      3,120
Transportation................................        683        711        673        656         10         55
Comm. Rent and Util...........................      8,684      9,764      8,444      9,369        240        395
Printing......................................        257        504         92         89        165        415
Other Services:
    TASC......................................     17,659     20,336     17,659     20,336  .........  .........
    Other.....................................     17,421     18,911     12,313     13,708      5,108      5,203
    Supplies..................................      2,479      2,354      2,204      2,079        275        275
    Equipment.................................      4,282      7,140      3,512      6,303        770        837
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................    279,837    293,078    230,837    242,078     49,000     51,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     office of motor carriers (omc)
    Question. We understand that privatization of inspection programs 
is being pilot tested in Canada, and that in this country, the bus 
industry supports such a program. What, if anything, is being done to 
assess the feasibility and reliability of such programs in this 
country?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers is not currently studying the 
feasibility of private inspection programs. However, the Commercial 
Vehicle Safety Alliance is actively working with several States to 
develop such programs on a pilot basis. Once these inspections become 
active and an assessment of their data and reliability is made by CVSA, 
the Office of Motor Carriers can better assess policy development of 
this initiative.
    Question. OMC is seeking funds for contracting a new professional 
curriculum developer/trainer for the NTC. What is the long-term plan 
for the NTC? Is it anticipated that all NTC functions would be entirely 
contracted out?
    Answer. The long-term plan for NTC is to continue developing and 
instructing technical motor carrier program courses for Federal and 
State safety investigators. The instruction is performed by associate 
staff comprised of Federal and State employees under the coordination 
of NTC. The administration of the courses is performed by NTC Federal 
and contract employees from the NTC location. Every year there are 
courses which are updated and new ones developed. That process is 
coordinated by NTC staff with contract assistance as well as technical 
input by Federal and State employee expertise.
    The mix of Federal, State and contract employees serves NTC well. 
The addition of a professional developer to the staff would not only 
greatly assist course development but provide a consistent entity to 
work with other personnel on a daily basis. This would be preferable to 
the current situation of using new contractual arrangements each time a 
new course is developed, thus avoiding the program and organization 
learning curve of each new contractor.
    Question. OMC has been stating for several years that it is working 
towards performance-based regulations. Which performance-based 
regulations have you issued during the last few years?
    Answer. During the last few years the OMC has issued no 
performance-based regulations. The issuance of a final regulation is 
the final step in the rulemaking process. We have a number of 
performance-based regulations in the NPRM stage. They are (1) 
conspicuity, (2) rear-underride protection, (3) supporting documents, 
(4) cargo securement, (5) hours-of-service, (6) anti-lock brake 
systems, and (7) zero-base regulatory review.
    Question. When will the rewrite of the safety regulations be 
issued?
    Answer. An NPRM proposing the rewrite of the safety regulations, 
commonly referred to as the zero-base regulatory review, is scheduled 
for publication this fall. The final rule should be issued by December, 
1999.
    Question. Please break out separately the expected costs of each of 
the new initiatives specified under safety program enhancements.
    Answer. See the chart below:

Industry Forums...............................................  $445,000
HazMat Safety Evaluation Area Development.....................   150,000
HazMat Registration and Permitting............................   500,000
SAFESTAT Evaluation...........................................    75,000
Performance Grants Workshop...................................    80,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 1,250,000

    Question. Please break out separately the expected costs of each of 
the new initiatives specified under office support and efficiency.
    Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for office support and 
efficiency includes $400,000 for electronic record keeping and $360,000 
for office renovations and relocations.
    Question. Please break out separately the expected costs of each of 
the new initiatives specified under communications and technical 
assistance.
    Answer. The proposed budget for communication and technical 
assistance is as follows: driver medical updates $203,000; commercial 
driver hotline $150,000; and Share the Road Campaign $190,000.
    Question. Please break out separately the expected costs of each of 
the new initiatives specified under Training initiatives?
    Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget for training includes $100,000 
proposed for each of the following new initiatives: automated safety 
assessment program, crash data collection training, unsafe driving 
practices, and professional trainer/course development.
    Question. You have previously conducted meetings such as the Safety 
Summit and various cargo tank forums within the base program without 
asking for additional funds. Why is it necessary in the fiscal year 
1999 budget to ask for additional funds for similar purposes?
    Answer. One of the results of the 1995 Truck and Bus Safety Summit 
was the opportunity for the Office of Motor Carriers to learn valuable 
information and techniques on developing and conducting forums. 
Building upon lessons learned and the value of partnering with 
representatives of the entire universe of parties who are affected by 
motor carrier operations to collectively improve safety, new forums or 
expansion of those previously held will take place in fiscal year 1999.
    These forums, such as the cargo tank forum and the second Safety 
Summit, will require funding, in excess of the cost of the 1995 summit 
alone. The concept of the 1995 Truck and Bus Safety Summit was 
developed after the 1995 budget submission and, therefore, Summit 
funding was redirected from other activities which had to be postponed. 
In order to avoid adversely affecting other activities again, the 
agency is requesting funds to support various partnership forums in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Question. Why aren't the monies requested to conduct meetings 
related to a performance-based MCSAP and to hire a contractor to 
evaluate that initiative funded under the national priority portion of, 
or the administrative takedown for, the MCSAP?
    Answer. The agency believes that national priority funding is 
necessary to fund and support national, uniform program initiatives 
such as drug interdiction, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Partnership 
Program (formerly Judicial Outreach Program), data timeliness and 
quality initiatives and other similar program activities. FHWA has 
expended MCSAP administrative funds in the past, and will continue to 
do so, to support performance-based program delivery activity and 
training because we believe it provides support to the development and 
implementation of the States' programs. However, given the limits on 
MCSAP administrative funding, we believe these funds should be used to 
support program delivery activity whenever possible.
    Question. How many meetings during the last year has FHWA already 
sponsored that deal with training to conduct performance-based MCSAP 
planning?
    Answer. Between August and December 1997, the FHWA conducted three 
meetings of the Performance-Based Workgroup, which is the group that 
designed and developed the training curriculum and content. We also 
completed nine two-day training sessions from January to March of 1998 
in each region for State and OMC personnel. An abbreviated version of 
the course (necessitated by time constraints) will be presented to all 
interested State personnel at the CVSA Spring Conference in Irvine, 
California in May, and another full two-day course is scheduled for OMC 
headquarters personnel in June 1998.
    Question. Why can't you use your existing staff to audit SafeStat 
implementation?
    Answer. FHWA does plan to use its existing staff to audit SafeStat 
implementation. The scope of this audit would include: analyzing our 
success in reviewing all SafeStat A & B carriers during the six-month 
period; assessing the resulting level of enforcement to project our 
follow-up needs and our capacity; measuring the safety improvement 
resulting from SafeStat implementation for improvement effectiveness 
and for consideration of other features of the PRISM pilot; and 
reviewing the staffing and resource distributions to determine the most 
effective field allocations.
    Question. During the last five years, have you used internal team 
reviews to audit various aspects of program delivery without asking for 
additional funds?
    Answer. Yes, during the past five years the FHWA has initiated more 
than a dozen quality review teams, peer review teams, management review 
teams, and operational program review teams to evaluate various aspects 
of its program delivery without requesting additional funds. These 
teams have reviewed the enforcement process and procedures, the 
compliance review activity, the MCSAP program consistency and 
administration, outreach initiatives, and the management of regional 
programs. Reviews of this type, where specialized program expertise and 
experience are critical elements for measuring success and improving 
processes, have been very beneficial to streamlining and improving the 
effectiveness of the program.
    Question. Why do you want to hire a contractor for a task, such as 
SafeStat evaluations, that could be conducted by your federal program 
managers?
    Answer. SafeStat is a very sophisticated, complex and highly 
effective analytical tool for identifying high-risk carriers. The 
SafeStat prioritization system was designed to be a dynamic program 
that would continue to be improved as new sources of data and more 
accurate methods of measuring safety performance were developed and 
tested. SafeStat has gone through 6 versions. Each new version of 
SafeStat represents a marked improvement over the last. SafeStat was 
designed and tested with the utmost rigor and scientific method over 
the course of 6 years and has resulted in a performance assessment 
system that is accurate, defendable, analytically sound and cost 
effective. A major portion of SafeStat's success is directly 
attributable to the extensive testing and evaluation done by an 
independent provider prior to implementation of any new version of 
SafeStat. To remove this most critical element would jeopardize the 
continued success of the program.
    SafeStat affects all OMC functional areas. Consequently, there is 
not one who has not been, or is currently, involved in some aspect of 
SafeStat. In order to ensure that we receive the most critical and 
objective assessment of SafeStat, we believe evaluations should be 
performed by an independent and impartial reviewer.
    Question. How much money did OMC spend during each of the last 
three years on office renovations and relocations? On electronic record 
keeping systems? What was the account used to pay for these expenses?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers spent approximately $132,231 
for office relocations and renovations in fiscal year 1995, $11,336 in 
fiscal year 1996 and $11,175 in fiscal year 1997. The source of funding 
for relocations and renovations was the general operating expense 
account. The Office of Motor Carriers has not spent any funds on 
electronic record keeping. This is a new initiative which has been 
researched and piloted by the Federal Highway Administration as an 
opportunity to consolidate records, reduce space needs, and have ready 
access to documents.
    Question. Why can't those improvements be funded out of the base 
program?
    Answer. Available funds from the ``base program'' have been reduced 
in recent years for the many new program initiatives the Office of 
Motor Carriers has undertaken such as NAFTA and SafeStat. The base-
program funding pool is insufficient to meet the needs of office 
renovations and relocations as well as the new electronic recordkeeping 
initiative.
    Question. Shouldn't such renovations be postponed until FHWA's 
field reorganization is completed and you know where all of such 
offices will be located?
    Answer. Funding requested for renovations is mostly for division 
offices which will be unaffected by the field restructuring. However, 
some portion of the request is funding of renovations for regional 
offices as well which will be needed regardless of the location. The 
``resource center'' concept will result in restructuring the types and 
numbers of personnel needed in each office, thus requiring office 
reconfiguration.
    Question. Why can't the ASAP training be conducted in conjunction 
with other planned OMC meetings, such as your Federal Program Manager 
meetings?
    Answer. Most of the ASAP training that is planned for Federal 
personnel can be conducted in conjunction with regularly scheduled 
meetings, such as OMC Federal Program Managers' meetings or Regional/
State Director meetings to reduce travel costs. However, as we provide 
ASAP training to State personnel, the motor carrier industry, and to 
other safety organizations, additional travel costs will be incurred. 
Costs for the publication of various educational materials such as 
brochures, pamphlets and video tapes, will also be incurred.
    Question. Does your budget include funds for ASAP in both OMC 
operations and in the CVO program? If so, what are those amounts and 
why are both of those amounts necessary? What are the differences in 
the purpose of those requests?
    Answer. For fiscal year 1999, the ASAP program has requested 
funding of $350,000 from the CVO program. This is the only request for 
funds for the ASAP program in fiscal year 1999. The purpose of the 
funding will be to administer the functional and maintenance 
requirements of the ASAP program once it becomes fully operational. The 
proposed fiscal year 1999 funding will also support the testing of the 
ASAP software for use as a certifying tool in particular applications 
like that of the international border crossings.
    Question. In Audit Report No. AS-FH-7-006, the Inspector General 
(I.G.) concluded that FHWA had not established goals for conducting 
compliance reviews and that approximately 64 percent of the interstate 
motor carrier population remained unrated at the end of fiscal year 
1995. Please discuss whether you have since established such goals. 
What percent of interstate motor carriers remain unrated and what are 
you doing to reduce this percentage?
    Answer. FHWA's goal setting is ``performance based'' rather than 
``activity based.'' Our objective is to reduce the number and frequency 
of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes and the resulting fatalities, 
injuries, and property damage. This is accomplished through a 
comprehensive list of analytically focused activities intended to 
address all of the causes of CMV crashes and related consequences, not 
merely the motor carrier's compliance status.
    It is not an FHWA objective to assign safety ratings to all motor 
carriers. FHWA focuses its compliance reviews (CR's) on carriers 
identified as ``high risk.'' These are carriers with high crash rates, 
and safety performance problems related to drivers, vehicles, and 
management operating practices. These carriers are identified using the 
SafeStat risk assessment criteria and are included in categories A and 
B. In fiscal year 1998, the FHWA has identified the reviewing of all 
category A and B carriers as an objective.
    At this time, approximately 71 percent of the motor carrier 
population is unrated. In an effort to address this situation, the FHWA 
is developing a revised performance-based safety fitness assessment 
process that would not require a CR. This performance based-proposal is 
being developed as an ANPRM, which will be published soon. In addition, 
the FHWA is developing an expanded ASAP pilot to include the 1,000 
highest risk, unrated, hazardous materials carriers. This process 
involves analyzing carrier responses to specific safety and operational 
questions and generally does not require an on-site review to assess 
the carrier's fitness.
    In response to industry demand for safety fitness ratings, FHWA is 
working in partnership with a private sector initiative to develop an 
independent industry standard of excellence which would not require any 
direct involvement by FHWA. This, in conjunction with third party 
review initiatives, will significantly increase the level of coverage 
issues raised by the IG with minimal impact on FHWA program resources.
    Question. The I.G. stated that the number of compliance reviews 
performed by Federal investigators have decreased by 41 percent since 
fiscal year 1991, even though FHWA requested and received 150 more 
safety investigators during the early 1990's. Please explain the 
decrease in compliance reviews.
    Answer. The number of reviews has gone down because we are using 
more comprehensive strategies and countermeasure activities to reduce 
CMV crashes and to address our increasing responsibilities. The focus 
is on safety results rather than compliance activities.
    Since 1991, our management activities relating to the MCSAP have 
significantly grown due to the increased size of the program and the 
expanded range of funded compliance and enforcement. At the same time, 
the FHWA safety program responsibilities have been expanded to include 
the Commercial Driver License Program, controlled substance testing, 
ITS/CVO, increased hazardous materials responsibilities, and various 
additional authorities on larger numbers of carriers.
    Since passage of the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993, FHWA has continued to increase its focus on performance 
measurement and safety results, rather than compliance and enforcement 
activities. Its goals and objectives have related to the reduction of 
CMV crashes and the resulting consequences, in addition to reducing the 
risk of motor carrier operations. In analyzing the crash data, the 
majority of CMV fatal crashes involve another motor vehicle in addition 
to the CMV. It is also true that a large segment of the CMV crashes do 
not involve interstate carriers. These and other facts have led to a 
broadened FHWA perspective in developing countermeasure activities to 
reduce all types of motor carrier crashes. These include educational 
and outreach programs to better inform the public of the inherent risks 
related to driving near CMV's, partnering with industry and other 
safety agencies to promote increased seatbelt usage and better driver 
behavior, engaging in multi-modal strategies to improve the safeness of 
intermodal transportation, focusing on crash-causation factors as a 
means to improvement, and better identifying through performance data 
those high-risk carriers in greatest need for compliance and 
enforcement attention.
    Question. Why does the number of reviews continue to decrease? What 
was the effect and purpose of adding 150 investigators to the 
enforcement staff?
    Answer. The number of reviews has gone down because we are using 
more comprehensive strategies and countermeasure activities to reduce 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes and to address our increasing 
responsibilities.
    The FHWA recognizes that the original purpose of adding 150 
investigators to the enforcement staff was to help with the increasing 
workload related to the task of rating all motor carriers. In the early 
1990's, the FHWA realized generating huge numbers of safety ratings by 
the Federal and State enforcement staff would quickly overwhelm FHWA's 
capacity to address the ``less than satisfactory'' population in a 
timely manner. In addition, we were not utilizing all available data 
sources that could better identify the highest-risk carriers. As FHWA 
became more performance oriented, we recognized that the traditional 
FHWA compliance and enforcement activities were not broad enough to 
address the complex environment that leads to crashes. In order to 
better address the safety problem, broader countermeasure activities 
have been developed to improve safety in a more comprehensive manner. 
These activities include: ``Share the Road'' and outreach initiatives 
directed at all highway motorists; commercial driver's license program 
implementation; enhanced MCSAP management and monitoring; and the 
promotion of ITS-CVO technologies and partnering with other Federal, 
State, and local safety agencies to identify through data analysis 
critical safety problems and countermeasures to reduce CMV crashes. The 
field staff has been involved with these new activities, in addition to 
conducting more effective and better focused compliance reviews which 
will result in a safer, crash-free environment.
    Question. The I.G. observed that a large number of safety 
investigators performed only a small number of compliance reviews. What 
were they doing instead? How do you measure the effectiveness of their 
efforts?
    Answer. In its analysis, the OIG included all FHWA personnel who 
had conducted at least one compliance review (CR) during the period 
reviewed. This included supervisors, managers, and program specialists. 
We advised them that this approach did not reflect the actual situation 
since they included staff whose primary responsibilities do not include 
field compliance and enforcement activities. This resulted in a number 
of individuals being identified with very few CR's. Safety 
investigators also perform various outreach and educational activities, 
and are increasingly developing more complex enforcement cases. These 
functions are critical elements of the overall comprehensive safety 
program.
    We measure the effectiveness of our field by what is achieved in 
terms of motor carrier safety improvement. Focusing on the reduction of 
crashes, compliance improvement and commercial motor vehicle risk 
reduction, we have implemented specific performance measures for our 
field managers which center on the safety outcomes of our various 
activities.
    Question. Industry wants problem carriers to receive increased 
attention by the OMC. If you are conducting compliance reviews on fewer 
and fewer carriers each year, how can you assure us that you are 
adequately addressing all problem carriers in a timely manner?
    Answer. Given the size of the industry, FHWA is focusing its 
compliance and enforcement resources on the worst of the problem 
carriers. Using current, performance-based data we are regenerating the 
list, are conducting compliance reviews of this group every 6 months, 
and are producing higher rates of enforcement with greater penalties 
for chronic problem carriers.
    This compliance and enforcement effort is a significant part of 
FHWA's comprehensive strategy to reduce commercial motor vehicle 
crashes, and the resulting fatalities, injuries and property damage. 
This objective is also being addressed through education, outreach, 
partnering, general deterrence, and technology assessment initiatives 
which also require field staffing resources to implement. We believe 
that these additional strategies will influence the behavior of larger 
populations of carriers, and drivers of all types, to reduce the number 
of serious crashes involving large trucks.
    Question. Please provide data for each of the last three years on 
the following expenditures for OMC: personnel change of station, 
education and training, international travel, and non-mandatory bonuses 
or incentives (awards).
    Answer. See chart below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1995            1996            1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Change of Station.....................................      $1,334,364        $434,099        $566,000
Education and Training..........................................         694,580         234,423         561,282
International Travel............................................          81,176          29,256          63,043
Non-Mandatory Bonuses or Incentives (awards)....................     \1\ 110,252         327,722         316,678
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This amount does not include performance awards. Under the old performance rating system, performance awards
  were mandatory based on employee rating.

    Question. How many compliance reviews, enforcement cases closed 
with action (e.g., civil penalty), compliance orders, operations out-
of-service orders, and consent orders were conducted or issued by each 
of the OMC Regional Offices during each of the last three years?
    Answer. See chart below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Compliance reviews      Enforcement cases closed
                                                           ---------------------------            \1\
                                                                                      --------------------------
                           Region                            Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal
                                                              year     year     year     year     year     year
                                                              1995     1996     1997     1995     1996     1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01........................................................      960      846      671      295      243      139
03........................................................      908      740      220      325      327      113
04........................................................    1,151    1,057      758      321      248      168
05........................................................    1,464    1,400    1,107      441      414      369
06........................................................      466      488      455      239      245      293
07........................................................      287      243      245      156      123       72
08........................................................      274      301      259       69      133      122
09........................................................      383      305      241       76       84       56
10........................................................      307      368      213      103      155       52
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................    6,200    5,748    4,169    2,025    1,972    1,384
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Compliance orders \1\        Consent orders \1\     Out of service orders \1\
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Region               Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal
                                   year     year     year     year     year     year     year     year     year
                                   1995     1996     1997     1995     1996     1997     1995     1996     1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01.............................       13        2  .......       33       20       18       17        8  .......
03.............................       51       26        9       56       13        1        6        5  .......
04.............................  .......        1        1        1  .......  .......        8       11        1
05.............................       65       31       15       55       37       16        1  .......  .......
06.............................       34       18  .......        6        5  .......        1        9        4
07.............................        7        6        2       15       22        7        2  .......        2
08.............................        2        7        5  .......        4        8        3        1        2
09.............................       20       16  .......        1  .......  .......        7  .......  .......
10.............................       24       14        4  .......        9       13        1        2        4
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................      216      121       36      167      110       63       46       36       13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 data only reflect completed enforcement cases. Other enforcement
  actions initiated during this period are pending.
 
Source: Motor Carrier Management Information System.

    Question. Please break out in extensive detail the fiscal year 
1996, fiscal year 1997, and planned fiscal year 1998 expenses for each 
of the following items: training, total quality management, strategic 
planning, non-mandatory incentive awards, and retreats of senior 
management away from headquarters. Please assume in your answer 
authorization for the entire amount appropriated in the fiscal year 
1998 Appropriations Act.
    Answer. See chart below.

         OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIERS COSTS FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 1998
             Activity                  1996         1997     (Projected)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training.........................     $234,423     $561,282     $725,000
TQM and Strategic Planning \1\...       21,100       14,400        2,000
Non-Mandatory Incentive Awards...      113,430      121,242      135,156
Senior Man. Retreats.............        1,892        2,844        2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This includes publishing of strategic planning pamphlet, training,
  Quality Program Managers meetings, Strategic Planning Coordinator's
  training and travel.

    Question. Please break out in detail the amount and purpose of all 
fiscal year 1998 activities, projects, contracts, and programs that 
relate to information systems and analytical studies. Please specify 
the source of those funds, delineating contract and GOE monies for 
fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998 (assuming full authorization up to 
the appropriated amount) and proposed for fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. See chart below.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Project                             GOE    ITS/CVO    R&T      L&I     Other    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     FISCAL YEAR 1997
 
Information Systems:
    MCMIS.................................................    1,945    1,300      540      647      150    4,582
    SAFETYNET.............................................      672    1,290      250      275       32    2,519
    Field and Office Systems..............................      758  .......  .......       79  .......      837
    SAFER/200 Sites.......................................  .......    2,410      450  .......  .......    2,860
    Licensing.............................................  .......  .......  .......      224  .......      224
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................    3,375    5,000    1,240    1,225      182   11,022
                                                           =====================================================
Data Analysis:
    Crash Systems.........................................  .......  .......      310  .......  .......      310
    Effectiveness.........................................  .......  .......      250  .......  .......      250
    Analysis in Policy....................................  .......  .......      512  .......  .......      512
    In-Use Population.....................................  .......  .......      210  .......  .......      210
    Causation.............................................  .......  .......      225  .......  .......      225
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................  .......  .......    1,507  .......  .......    1,507
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL...............................................    3,375    5,000    2,747    2,450      182   12,529
                                                           =====================================================
                      FISCAL YEAR 1998
 
Information Systems:
    MCMIS.................................................    1,563    1,350      540    1,100      850    5,403
    SAFETYNET.............................................      587      485      450       50      250    1,822
    Field and Office Systems..............................      650  .......  .......       50  .......      700
    SAFER/200 Sites.......................................      800    1,765  .......  .......      500    3,065
    Licensing.............................................  .......  .......  .......      500  .......      500
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................    3,600    3,600      990    1,700    1,600   11,490
                                                           =====================================================
Data Analysis:
    Crash Systems.........................................  .......  .......      275  .......  .......      275
    Effectiveness.........................................  .......  .......      300  .......  .......      300
    Analysis in Policy....................................  .......  .......      565  .......  .......      565
    In-Use Population.....................................  .......  .......       60  .......      195      255
    Causation.............................................  .......  .......       25  .......      205      230
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................  .......  .......    1,225  .......      400    1,625
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL...............................................    3,600    3,600    2,215    1,700    2,000   13,115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOE = General Operating Expenses; ITS/CVO = Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Operations;
  R&T = Research and Technology contracts; L&I = Licensing and Insurance (ex-ICC); Other = Other sources, e.g.,
  MCSAP, etc.

Fiscal year 1999

 (The amounts planned for fiscal year 1999 assuming full authorization, 
 are as below. We do not have this broken out by individual projects at 
                               this time.)

        Purpose                                                Requested

Information systems:
    Operations, Mods & Support.......................... \1\ $10,500,000
    Development & Deployment............................       5,000,000
Data Analysis...........................................       3,000,000
PRISM...................................................       6,000,000
Driver Program Enhancements.............................       3,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................  \2\ 27,500,000

\1\ Includes $4,300,000 from ITS/CVO.
\2\ The $27,500,000 total would be comprised of $17,000,000 of new 
authorization plus $10,500,000 from existing sources. Of the $10,500,000 
from existing sources, $4,300,000 has been requested from ITS/CVO.

    Question. How much was spent on the Office of Motor Carrier's ADP 
requirements during fiscal year 1997?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997 $11,022,000 was spent.
    Question. How much is planned for fiscal year 1998, assuming full 
authorization of the appropriated amount? In your answer please break 
out for each year the amounts from the motor carrier account and the 
ITS-CVO account and indicate each of the projects funded and the source 
of funds.
    Answer. See chart below.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Project                             GOE    ITS/CVO    R&T      L&I     Other    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      FISCAL YEAR 1998
 
Information Systems:
    MCMIS.................................................    1,563    1,350      540    1,100      850  .......
    SAFETYNET.............................................      587      485      450       50      250  .......
    Field and Office Systems..............................      650  .......  .......       50  .......  .......
    SAFER/200 Sites.......................................      800    1,765  .......  .......      500  .......
    Licensing.............................................  .......  .......  .......      500  .......  .......
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................    3,600    3,600      990    1,700    1,600   11,490
                                                           =====================================================
Data Analysis:
    Crash Systems.........................................  .......  .......      275  .......  .......  .......
    Effectiveness.........................................  .......  .......      300  .......  .......  .......
    Analysis in Policy....................................  .......  .......      565  .......  .......  .......
    In-Use Population.....................................  .......  .......       60  .......      195  .......
    Causation.............................................  .......  .......       25  .......      205  .......
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................  .......  .......    1,225  .......      400    1,625
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL...............................................    3,600    3,600    2,215    1,700    2,000   13,115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOE = General Operating Expenses; ITS/CVO = Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Operations;
  R&T = Research and Technology contracts; L&I = Licensing and Insurance (ex-ICC); Other = Other sources, e.g.,
  MCSAP, etc.

    Question. Please compare the amount spent with the amount 
appropriated for ADP for each of the last five years.
    Answer. The total amounts appropriated and spent for ADP, 
considering all sources, are as shown below.

                        [In millions of dollars]

                                                                        
Fiscal year:
    1994..........................................................  6.15
    1995..........................................................  8.40
    1996..........................................................  9.45
    1997 \1\...................................................... 11.02
    1998 \1\...................................................\2\ 11.49

\1\ Fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 include expenditures related 
to the information systems of the Licensing and Insurance Division 
(formerly in the ICC), as well as user-fees received, which are not 
appropriated.
\2\ Planned.

    Question. What amount of PC and B was reallocated or used for any 
other purpose in fiscal year 1996? In fiscal year 1997? For which 
purposes were such funds used?
    Answer. Due to fluctuations in FTE's, promotion costs, number of 
personnel relocations etc., and the fact that the budget for the PC and 
B account is prepared over a year prior to enactment there are some 
minor variances among object classes. In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal 
year 1997 less than $200,000 (one-half of 1 percent) of that was 
reallocated directly to program activities such as the No-Zone program. 
For fiscal year 1998 we anticipate the PC and B budget estimate to be 
spent as appropriated.
    Question. Please list the amount and purposes of each of your 
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 contracts related to strategic 
planning or quality management, being certain to include contracts and 
outside consultants and organizations in those efforts. Which funding 
source or budget allocation was used to pay for those expenses?
    Answer. There were no contractual funds expended in fiscal year 
1997 or planned for fiscal year 1998 to support strategic planning and 
quality management. The Office of Motor Carriers has established 
programs in these areas and operates these programs with internal 
staff.
    Question. How much money does OMC typically reserve to pay for 
initiatives other than R&D conducted by OMC headquarters? Please 
specify separately the amount and nature of each of the activities 
funded with those monies for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. 
What is the amount requested for those activities for fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. OMC typically has a $900,000 headquarters support budget. 
Typical areas funded on an annual basis are Departmental Administrative 
Law Judges ($150,000), contractual support for the Freedom of 
Information Act office ($130,000), rent for the National Training 
Center ($140,000), local training funds ($45,000), supplies ($30,000), 
printing ($30,000), conference support ($25,000), non-recurring special 
studies ($200,000) and equipment maintenance contracts/miscellaneous 
office support $150,000.
    The fiscal year 1999 budget contains several funding initiatives 
which require contractual support to implement. A $1.8 million increase 
is requested for fiscal year 1999 headquarters support which will fund 
such initiatives as the driver listening post, various industry forums, 
program evaluations.
    Question. As directed by the Committee, how have you ensured that 
none of the Motor Carrier FTE reductions were taken from the field 
staff, especially motor carrier safety specialist positions?
    Answer. The Federal Highway Administration is restructuring the 
field and headquarters offices to provide better service to our 
customers and to operate more efficiently. As part of that study, the 
Office of Motor Carriers is conducting a review of both field and 
headquarters FTE use and allocations.
    Question. Please list all of the regulatory requirements and 
reports dealing with OMC programs, CVO or commercial vehicle safety 
which are past due as specified in various congressional acts and bill 
reports. What is the expected date of submittal for each of those?
    Answer. The information follows:

                                                                                  PAST DUE RULEMAKINGS, REPORT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Law                                Rulemaking                              Deadline                                                   Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HM Transportation Uniform Safety    Motor Carrier Safety Permits, Inspect    Final Rule by 11/16/91.............  NPRM published 6/17/93 (58 FR 33418). After reviewing the Alliance for Uniform
 Act of 1990, Sections 8 and 15.     Radioactive Materials.                                                        HazMat Transportation Procedures' (the Alliance) 1993 preliminary report and
                                                                                                                   recommendations concerning implementation of 49 U.S.C. 5119, the FHWA decided
                                                                                                                   not to proceed with further rulemaking action to implement 49 U.S.C. 5109
                                                                                                                   (Section 8) and 5105 (Section 15) until the Alliance's pilot project was
                                                                                                                   completed.
                                                                                                                  Notice announcing availability of the Alliance's final report and requesting
                                                                                                                   public comment published 7/9/96.
                                                                                                                  Supplemental NPRM published 3/31/98 to request additional comments from the
                                                                                                                   States and industry. Anticipate publishing final rule in 2001.
Motor Carrier Act of 1991           Minimum Training Requirements for        NPRM by 12/18/93...................  NPRM currently being revised to respond to issues raised during Departmental
 (Intermodal Surface                 Operators and Training Instructors of                                         review.
 Transportation Efficiency Act),     Multi-Trailer Combination Vehicles.                                          Anticipate publishing NPRM by end of 1998, final rule in 1999.
 Section 4007(b)(2).
Motor Carrier Act of 1991           Entry-Level Driver Training............  NPRM by 12/18/92...................  ANPRM published 6/21/93, 104 comments received and analyzed. Final study
 (Intermodal Surface                                                         Final by 12/18/93..................   report sent to Congress 2/5/96. Notice of availability and request for
 Transportation Efficiency Act),                                             Report to Congress by 1/18/94......   comments on the report published in the Federal Register 4/25/96 with 6-month
 Section 4007(b)(2).                                                                                               comment period. Public hearings were held 11/13/96, comment period extended
                                                                                                                   to 11/29/96.
                                                                                                                  NPRM drafted, currently under internal review, anticipate publishing by end of
                                                                                                                   1998. Anticipate final rule in 1999.
Hazardous Materials (HM)            Railroad Grade Crossing Safety.........  Final Rule by 2/26/95..............  FHWA has prepared a draft NPRM, which is under review.
 Transportation Authorization Act
 of 1994, Public Law 103-311,
 Section 112.
Hazardous Materials (HM)            Supporting Documents for Records of      Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by 8/  NPRM published in Federal Register 4/20/98. Anticipate final rule in 1st
 Transportation Authorization Act    Duty Status.                             25/95 Final Rule by 2/26/96.         quarter of 1999.
 of 1994, Public Law 103-311,
 Section 113.
HM Authorization Act of 1994,       Safety Performance History of New        Final Rule by 2/26/96..............  NPRM published 3/14/96. SNPRM drafted and under review by DOT. DOT to confer
 Section 114.                        Drivers.                                                                      with Small Business Administration concerning impacts on small businesses.
Interstate Commerce Commission      Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking    ANPRM by 3/01/96...................  ANPRM published 11/05/96. Comment period extended to 6/30/97. Over 1,600
 Termination Act of 1995, Section    (ANPRM) on HOS and Related Issues.      NPRM by 3/01/97....................   docket comments received. Comments analyzed, technical and regulatory review
 408.                                                                                                              assessments of alternatives underway, NPRM in preparation. Anticipate
Fiscal Year 1996 DOT                                                                                               publishing NPRM by late 1998, Final Rule by late 1999-early 2000.
 Appropriations Act, C-47 and S95.
Registration and Other Forms        Rulemaking to develop new integrated     Statutory Deadline: Final 1/1/98...  ANPRM published 8/26/96 at Vol. 61 page 43816. Comments due by 10/25/96. A
 (Motor Carrier Replacement          information system and transmit a                                             cementer's request for a 90-day extension to file comments was rejected.
 Information/Registration System),   mandated report..                                                            ANPRM comments analyzed.
 Includes Table Item 3-35.                                                                                        Letter report sent notifying Congress that the 1/1/98 deadline not met due to
Interstate Commerce Commission                                                                                     complexity of issues.
 Termination Act of 1995, Section                                                                                 Awaiting action of State-Motor Carrier industry group meeting under the
 13908.                                                                                                            auspices of the House Transportation Committee on Single-State Registration
                                                                                                                   Program issues.
Fiscal year 1997 Appropriations,    REPORT: Long-Term Funding of the CVISN   Statutory deadline: Late 1997......  The FHWA has completed a draft report on long term-funding of CVISN. The final
 Senate Report 104-325.              System: foundation for a smooth                                               report is expected to be submitted to both the House and Senate
                                     transition by 2001 from a federally                                           Appropriations Committees by October, 1998.
                                     financed to a user-financed system
                                     that will ensure its long-term
                                     operation and improvement..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Why hasn't the OMC complied with Section 114 of Public 
Law 103-311 that requires the issuance of regulations that should 
improve the transfer of information regarding an employee's safety 
performance? When will a final regulation be issued in that area?
    Answer. The Federal Highway Administration published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking on March 14, 1996 (61 FR 10548), with respect to 
Section 114. The Small Business Administration submitted comments to 
the docket requesting more detailed analyses under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act. The FHWA initially planned 
to publish these analyses in the final rule and proceeded to draft that 
document. After consulting with SBA, it was determined that FHWA should 
allow the public an opportunity to comment on the amended analyses by 
publishing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Question. What has the OMC done to implement the provisions of that 
law which requires improvement in the use of supporting documents, and 
requires previous motor carrier employers to provide driver information 
to current motor carrier employers?
    Answer. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on April 20, 1998 (63 FR 19457), 
with respect to Section 113. The comment period closes on June 19, 
1998.
    The FHWA published an NPRM on March 14, 1996 (61 FR 10548), with 
respect to Section 114. The Small Business Administration submitted 
comments to the docket requesting further additional analyses under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act. The FHWA is 
drafting a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to allow the 
public an additional opportunity to comment.
    Question. The Committee's fiscal year 1998 allowance included 
$500,000 for the OMC to expand and improve its no-zone campaign and 
related activities. Assuming full authorization of the appropriated 
amount, how will these monies be used?
    Answer. Assuming full authorization, this funding would be used to 
support four principal activities:
    Improvement of the No-Zone public safety education campaign.--FHWA, 
with the assistance of states, is working on the development of new, 
top-notch public service announcements, graphics, brochures, and other 
safety promotional materials to convey the No-Zone message. A No-Zone 
home-page has been established to communicate the share-the-road 
message via the Internet. FHWA has established a support contract to 
handle coordination and clearing-house activities for nationwide No-
Zone events and requests. The support contract will also help with 
establishment of a nationwide, public/private Share-the-Road coalition. 
FHWA also plans to conduct a national survey on public knowledge of the 
limitations of large commercial vehicles and safe driving practices in 
their vicinity. The survey would measure the current level of awareness 
of the No-Zone message and serve as a baseline for measuring the 
effectiveness of the No-Zone education campaign.
    International Highway Transportation Safety Week.--FHWA and the 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance are jointly sponsoring this special 
week dedicated to truck and bus safety in the United States, Canada, 
and Mexico. Events held across the country will educate motorists about 
safely sharing the road with large commercial vehicles. State, 
industry, and federal teams also will provide drivers with information 
on safety belts, driver alertness and related health issues, work zone 
safety, the dangers of running red lights, highway grade crossing 
safety, and other highway safety issues.
    Public education component of the National Agenda for Motor Carrier 
Safety.--Among its key recommendations, the National Agenda for Motor 
Carrier Safety suggests that more attention be given to share the road 
issues in commercial driver training, new driver education, and driver 
rehabilitation courses. Based on research now underway in identifying 
unsafe driving practices in the vicinity of large vehicles, FHWA hopes 
to develop training modules tailored to specific audiences.
    Promotion of truck safety at national safety conferences.--
Historically, the passenger vehicle and commercial vehicle safety 
communities have developed along separate tracks. Communication about 
the importance of safely sharing the road has led both these safety 
communities to see the advantages of collaboration and coordination in 
key conferences and events. With this coordination in mind, FHWA has 
developed a master exhibit for use by headquarters and field staff at 
safety events around the country. Also, FHWA OMC is participating in 
major conferences sponsored by the National Safety Council and other 
safety organizations.
    Question. Please provide an update on activities intended to open 
up the southern border to comply with the intent of NAFTA.
    Answer. The Administration remains committed to NAFTA and its 
promise of economic prosperity for North America. We intend to honor 
our NAFTA obligations, including allowing safe Mexican motor carriers 
and drivers to operate in the United States.
    Over the past two years, we have been negotiating with Mexico to 
resolve safety and commercial concerns. First, since the key to 
minimizing safety risk is to ensure that Mexican inspectors check 
northbound trucks before they cross the border, we are helping Mexico 
establish a system to continuously assess the safety of these carriers. 
With DOT assistance, Mexico is establishing U.S.-compatible databases 
to facilitate the exchange of information on motor carrier and vehicle 
identification, driver licensing, and motor carrier safety performance, 
including inspections and accidents. The United States, Canada, and 
Mexico have agreed to develop a safety certification assessment process 
that will address these safety areas: (a) safety management systems, 
(b) driver qualifications, (c) hours of service compliance, (d) drug 
and alcohol testing, (e) condition of vehicles, (f) accident monitoring 
programs, and (g) compliance with regulations governing the 
transportation of hazardous materials. We believe Mexico is committed 
to motor carrier safety and is moving in the right direction in 
establishing a motor carrier safety oversight regime. Mexico is 
developing minimum safety standards regulations. We are awaiting the 
publication of these regulations and the establishment of an inspection 
program. We are confident that once the regulations are published and 
an inspection program in place, we will be able to begin planning for 
the gradual implementation of the NAFTA's access liberalization 
provisions. The DOT is revising its Mexican carrier applications to 
enhance the safety review at the application stage and is also 
developing a safety monitoring and compliance program designed to 
ensure that Mexican carriers comply with the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulations when they operate in the United States.
    On the commercial side, Mexico has satisfactorily addressed two out 
of three U.S. ``doing business'' concerns. Specifically, issues related 
to (1) U.S. investment in Mexican trucking companies and (2) increased 
access for 53-foot trailers have been resolved. The third issue, 
Mexico's regulation of express delivery services, is still outstanding. 
The NAFTA obligates Mexico to extend national treatment to U.S. 
companies that operate express delivery services in Mexico. In 
violation of the NAFTA, Mexico does not allow U.S. companies to use the 
same size trucks that Mexican express delivery companies are permitted 
to use. Consultations on this issue continue as we await Mexico's long-
promised revised regulations.
    Background.--Consultations regarding the implementation of the 
NAFTA's land transportation access provisions are ongoing. On December 
18, 1995, the date on which the United States and Mexico were to have 
allowed access to each other's border states for the delivery and 
backhaul of cargo, the United States announced a delay in the NAFTA 
implementation schedule for safety reasons. Since then, officials from 
the Department of Transportation and Mexico's Secretariat of 
Communications and Transportation (SCT) have met numerous times to 
devise a strategy for addressing our safety concerns. These 
negotiations are taking place in the Land Transportation Standards 
Subcommittee (LTSS), which was established by the NAFTA to seek 
compatibility of safety standards for truck, bus, and rail operations 
and for the transportation of hazardous materials. In addition to 
safety, the United States and Mexico are discussing issues involving 
increased access for 53-foot trailers on Mexican roads and the 
regulation of express delivery services. In view of Mexico's plans to 
further liberalize access for 53-foot trailers as highways are 
upgraded, the United States has decided to remove this issue from the 
list of ``doing business'' issues that must be resolved before reaching 
agreement on a date certain to begin processing applications for cross-
border trucking operations. A problem with Schneider National's 
investment in Mexico was successfully resolved last year, and is no 
longer a potential obstacle to eventual implementation of the NAFTA 
provisions.
    motor carrier regulatory relief and safety demonstration project
    Question. Under Section 344 of the National Highway System 
Designation Act of 1995, FHWA was required to implement a ``Motor 
Carrier Regulatory Relief and Safety Demonstration Project'' to 
determine whether certain eligible motor carriers could operate safely 
with fewer regulations. Congress specifically required that this 
program be up and running by August 24, 1996. Final guidelines were not 
published until June 10, 1997. In December 1997, the Office of Motor 
Carriers (OMC) announced a six-month extension of the time period for 
carrier applications. Why is it taking so long for OMC to implement 
this program?
    Answer. Several factors had to be considered as this project was 
designed. Foremost in these factors was the available data regarding 
this population's safety performance and the need to balance safety 
while developing a careful way to demonstrate how changes in our 
regulatory system might be possible. The pilot is designed to permit 
``safe'' carriers operating light to medium weight vehicles a wider 
latitude in selecting how they manage their safety performance while 
balancing all of the above concerns. However, there was limited 
interest in participation in the pilot based on the final guidelines.
    The FHWA was advised of Congressional concern regarding limited 
industry participation in the Project and the industry coalition that 
lobbied for the exemptions has suggested that additional exemptions and 
modifications to Project criteria were necessary to increase industry 
interest. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) discovered there was 
industry confusion regarding some of the project criteria and how the 
pilot would be run. The OMC has initiated an effort to provide 
additional Project exemptions, clarify existing exemptions, and modify 
certain Project criteria. This effort should improve industry 
understanding of the Project and provide substantive industry 
incentives, without reducing highway safety.
    Question. OMC may be considering changes in the pilot program to 
revise the application requirements, provide additional relief and 
minimize paperwork burdens. When will OMC announce these changes?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers has developed a draft Notice; 
request for comments that will modify the final guidelines published on 
June 10, 1997. The notice provides additional Project exemptions, 
clarifies existing exemptions, and modifies certain Project criteria. 
The notice is currently in concurrence channels and should be published 
in late spring or early summer.
    Question. The Final Guidelines require participants in the program 
to have no more than 1.6 police-reported accidents per million miles 
regardless of fault. The program is targeted toward smaller commercial 
vehicles between 10,000 and 26,000 lbs. These vehicles are typically 
operated in urban environments where ``fender-benders'' are common. Why 
should potential participants be excluded for minor accidents which are 
not their fault?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has determined that the 
prescribed accident rate for participation in the program, based on 
``police-reported'' accidents, may be a concern for interested 
companies. The rate itself has not been identified as a problem as much 
as the definition of an accident. The OMC is currently developing a 
Supplemental Notice of Final Determination that will establish a new 
participation accident-rate threshold. The accident rate for 
eligibility would be based on ``DOT-recordable'' accidents in lieu of 
police-reported accidents. These accidents have a higher threshold 
(i.e., tow-away, injury or fatality) than police-reported accidents. 
Therefore, just ``DOT-recordable'' accidents would be considered when 
determining a motor carrier's accident rate, which is consistent with 
all motor carrier safety programs.
    Question. There is no common definition or understanding of the 
term ``police-reported accidents'' among jurisdictions or motor 
carriers. OMC has not previously employed this standard, using instead 
the standard of ``DOT-recordable'' accidents. This is a standard which 
carriers already use. Given this, what is the rationale for using 
police-reported accidents as the criterion?
    Answer. The rationale for using ``police-reported accidents'' as 
the criterion was to obtain as much accident data as possible to 
analyze the overall accident experience of these motor carriers. The 
Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) agrees that the term ``police-reported 
accident'' is ambiguous and has determined that a modification to the 
eligibility criterion is in order. The OMC is currently developing a 
Supplemental Notice of Final Determination that would establish a new 
participation accident rate based on ``DOT-recordable'' accidents in 
lieu of police-reported accidents.
    Question. The actual regulatory relief provided in the Final 
Guidelines is minimal. In addition, the paperwork requirements 
associated with project participation would appear to outweigh any 
benefits. Given that the purpose of the project is to test the 
proposition that fleets can operate safely under fewer regulations, why 
is more substantive relief not provided?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) is currently developing 
a Supplemental Notice of Final Determination that proposes additional 
exemptions for the Project. The OMC believes these additional 
exemptions are substantive incentives that will increase industry 
interest in the Project. The OMC is aware that this Project imposes 
special record-keeping and reporting requirements on participating 
motor carriers (e.g. reporting accidents and changes regarding drivers 
participating in the project). The OMC believes that the paperwork 
requirements of the Project are absolutely necessary to conduct this 
Project and ensure the safety of the public on the highways. For 
instance, in the absence of a roster of the drivers participating in 
the Project, the Agency would be unable to assist enforcement personnel 
at roadside inspection locations in identifying Project drivers. 
Another problem cited by potential applicants is the extra burden 
placed on applicants by the requirement to develop a safety-control 
plan. Any motor carrier which participates must provide a safety plan 
to the FHWA explaining what it intends to do to ensure that its crash 
rate, roadside inspection results, and driver performance remain equal 
to or better than its current safety record. This safety-control plan 
is required by the National Highway Safety Act of 1995.
    Question. OMC has stated that the program is designed to apply only 
to interstate carriers. Many, if not most, businesses with trucks in 
the project weight range do not cross state lines as a part of their 
trucking operations. How does OMC define ``interstate'' for the 
purposes of the project?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has jurisdiction, with 
regard to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's), over 
motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles in interstate 
commerce. Any project conducted by the OMC which would provide 
exemptions from the FMCSR's can only be offered to interstate motor 
carriers. However, for the purposes of this project,intrastate 
movements of an interstate motor carrier, if the participating drivers 
are interstate, would be covered by the Project.
    Question. How many carriers have applied to participate in the 
pilot program? How many have been accepted?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers have received six (6) 
applications for participation in the project. In the interest of the 
continuity and uniformity of the project pending the proposed 
revisions, no carrier has been accepted yet. There is no information or 
data that would preclude their participation; however, we want to 
ensure the applicants are aware of the proposed changes prior to their 
acceptance.
    Question. Section 344 also requires the Secretary, within three 
years of enactment, to conduct a ``zero-based'' review of the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to determine ``whether and to what 
extent such regulations should apply to eligible vehicles.'' We are now 
into the third year following enactment. What is the status of this 
congressionally-mandated review?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) initiated the Zero-Base 
Regulatory Review Project in 1992. This effort is a comprehensive zero-
base review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's) 
in their entirety. We are in Phase III of this four-phase effort, with 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking expected to be published in the Federal 
Register in the summer of 1998. The OMC implemented the Motor Carrier 
Regulatory Relief and Safety Demonstration Project in response to 
Section 344 of the NHS Act of 1995 on June 10, 1997, with an 
anticipated completion date of June 10, 2000. The OMC intends to 
consider the results of the final evaluation of this Project when 
making decisions regarding the comprehensive zero-base review of the 
FMCSR's.
     highway research, development and technology transfer general
    Question. Please explain why the allocation for highway safety 
research and development is much less than the amount typically 
allocated to motor carrier research and development, especially when 
those amounts are normalized on a per fatality basis.
    Answer. Safety research and development funding is allocated based 
on research and development needs and priorities, not a cost per 
fatality ratio. Also, while the ratio of funding to fatalities may 
appear to be higher for motor carrier research and development than for 
highway safety research and development, it should be considered that 
any improvement in motor carrier safety has significant carry over 
improvements for passenger car safety.
    Question. The Conferees directed FHWA to increase substantially its 
cost sharing arrangements for the R&D program with non-federal sources 
in fiscal year 1998. Please discuss how FHWA complied with that 
directive. What additional measures to obtain cost sharing did you 
pursue?
    Answer. So far in fiscal year 1998, the FHWA has had available for 
research and technology only a fraction of its full years budget 
because of the provisions of the STEA legislation which extended parts 
of the ISTEA program to May of 1998. This has meant that our research 
expenditures so far in fiscal year 1998 have been used to fund our 
laboratory support contracts and to provide funds for those multi-year 
commitments that had been made prior to fiscal year 1998. No new starts 
have been initiated in fiscal year 1998 and this has seriously limited 
the opportunities for joint funded projects with the private sector. 
Nevertheless, we have initiated several cooperative research and 
development agreements (CRADA's) with the private sector so far in 
fiscal year 1998. Among these are agreements: with a private company in 
Massachusetts to produce an asphalt modifier invented at FHWA's Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) for construction of the first 
demonstration pavement this summer in Georgia; with the Corps of 
Engineers and a company in San Diego to construct a laser based rolling 
weight deflectometer for pavement analysis; with a newly formed company 
in Northern Virginia to commercially develop the Roadway Surface 
Analyzer (ROSAN), also invented at TFHRC, to measure pavement surface 
conditions at highway speeds; and we have an agreement with the 
American Concrete Pavement Association where they are providing the 
construction equipment and materials necessary to construct several 
test pavements at our Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF) at TFHRC. The 
FHWA will provide the engineering support and run the ALF for this 
experiment. In all four cases the technologies are being developed and 
evaluated with private sector funds enabling these technologies to 
advance.
    Question. Please compare your actual GOE expenditures for each R&D 
and technology transfer activity against the amount actually 
appropriated for fiscal year 1997 and expected for fiscal year 1998.
    Answer. See chart below.

                                                 [In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                Highway research and development                   1997 enacted     1997 actual     Fiscal year
                                                                        \1\        expenditures    1998 expected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety..........................................................           8,650           7,533           9,500
Pavements.......................................................          19,731          19,633          10,500
Structures......................................................          14,362          14,254          15,256
Environment.....................................................           5,443           5,348           5,666
Real Estate Services............................................             322             322             365
Policy..........................................................           5,328           5,298           5,400
Planning........................................................           5,889           5,889           7,000
Motor Carriers..................................................           7,399           5,072           7,400
ITS R&D.........................................................          26,393          26,393          31,500
Automated Highway Systems.......................................          22,000          22,000  ..............
ITS Operational Test............................................          56,447          55,942          83,900
Technical Assessment and Deployment.............................          13,811          13,511          13,311
Local Technical Assistance Program..............................           2,827           2,827  ..............
National Highway Institute......................................           4,269           3,600  ..............
Fairbank Building Renovation....................................             500             500           2,000
Minority Business Enterprise....................................           9,378           9,364          10,000
International Transportation....................................             475             307  ..............
Russia Technical Assistance.....................................             200             198  ..............
Transportation Investment Analysis..............................             250             250  ..............
Cost Allocation Study...........................................             300             300  ..............
Federal Lands Contamination Clean-up............................           2,500             726  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adjusted enacted amount to reflect $3 Million Procurement savings.

    Question. Please indicate on a year-by-year basis the amount of 
carryover funds for each year by category.
    Answer. See chart below.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Estimated
                                                Fiscal year  fiscal year
       Highway research and development             1997         1998
                                                 carryover    carryover
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety........................................        1,117  ...........
Pavements.....................................           98  ...........
Structures....................................          108  ...........
Environment...................................           95  ...........
Real Estate Services..........................  ...........  ...........
Policy........................................           30  ...........
Planning......................................  ...........  ...........
Motor Carriers................................        2,327  ...........
ITS R&D.......................................  ...........  ...........
Automated Highway Systems.....................  ...........  ...........
ITS Operational Test..........................          505  ...........
Other R&T activities:
    Technical Assessment and Deployment.......          300  ...........
    Local Technical Assistance Program........  ...........  ...........
    National Highway Institute................          669  ...........
    Fairbank Building Renovation..............  ...........  ...........
    Minority Business Enterprise..............           14  ...........
    International Transportation..............          168  ...........
    Russia Technical Assistance...............            2  ...........
    Transportation Investment Analysis........  ...........  ...........
    Cost Allocation Study.....................  ...........  ...........
    Federal Lands Contamination Clean-up......        1,774  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Did the RTEB carefully review the fiscal year 1999 
request for sustainable communities submitted by the Office of Planning 
and Environment? When did this occur?
    Answer. The RTEB reviewed the program objectives for the initiative 
on sustainability and transportation submitted by the Office of 
Planning and Environment on March 5, 1998. This request was included as 
one of the focus areas for the Research and Technology Council Group 
for Environment, Planning, and Real Estate Services.
                                 safety
    Question. Please break out in extensive detail the amount of funds 
allocated or planned to be allocated separately by R&D, OHS, and OTA on 
pedestrian and work zone safety for each of the following years: fiscal 
year 1997, fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. How many research or 
technology transfer/outreach projects pertaining to work zone safety 
are likely to be phased out during fiscal year 1998?
    Answer. The following table depicts the amount of funds allocated 
or planned by OTA and R&D. No program funding is specifically earmarked 
for OHS. The OHS utilizes funding from OTA and R&D to carry out 
pedestrian and work zone research or technology transfer/outreach 
projects.

                                                 [In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Work Zone Safety         Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal                           Fiscal
                                                  Fiscal     Fiscal   year 1999    Fiscal     Fiscal   year 1999
                                                year 1997  year 1998     \1\     year 1997  year 1998     \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTA...........................................       $820       $100       $360       $200       $200       $400
R&D...........................................        400        400        400         25  .........      1,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subject to availability.

    The technology transfer/outreach project pertaining to work zone 
safety that is likely to be phased out during fiscal year 1998 is the 
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) marketing of work zone 
products. The last year of funding for encouraging implementation of 
the SHRP work zone products was fiscal year 1997 with funding in the 
amount of $92,000. The program has been completed.
    Question. How many research or technology transfer/outreach 
projects pertaining to work zone safety are likely to be initiated 
during fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. The only research or technology transfer/outreach project 
pertaining to work zone safety to be initiated during 1999 (subject to 
availability of funds) is developing a work standard crash definition 
for collection of work zone accident information and then promoting it 
to law enforcement officers. Ongoing initiatives are: Provide 
information on the technology as well as market and promote the 
National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse located at the 
Texas Transportation Institute; and Promote the recently released work 
zone safety campaign (i.e., public service announcements) to develop a 
unified nationwide message.
    Question. What is the status of your research on UV head lighting 
in combination with fluorescent delineation and signing? How much money 
was invested in that work during fiscal year 1997? During fiscal year 
1998? How much is planned for fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. During the past fiscal year we conducted exploratory tests 
at the FBI Training Facility in Quantico, Virginia. This field data is 
currently being analyzed and evaluated, including a detailed cost-
benefit analysis. This study will be completed in November 1998. A new 
study was initiated in early March 1998 to further assess the potential 
of the technology in improving nighttime visibility, especially during 
adverse weather. This study will identify and investigate problems that 
may occur in implementing the technology from the perspective of 
headlight and motor vehicle manufacturers, departments of 
transportation, cost effectiveness, driver acceptability, etc. Funding 
used or planned for this research in fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998 
and fiscal year 1999 is, respectively, $99,000, $700,000, and $800,000.
    Question. In Conference Report 104-286, the conference agreement 
provides $8,768,000 for safety-related R&D. The conferees directed that 
the total R&D safety activity be funded at a level of at least 
$12,768,000, including both ISTEA and appropriations authority. Please 
document how this directive was accomplished, being certain to provide 
specific funding details.
    Answer. The four million in ISTEA funds were used to provide 
support for safety research in the following areas: development, 
maintenance and operation of the Highway Safety Information System; 
development of finite element simulation models for use in designing 
and evaluating roadside safety hardware; development of a prototype 
driver model for use in highway design; technical support for the 
FHWA's human factors laboratories; and development and evaluation of 
active roadside warning systems.
    The Highway Safety Information System is a multi-State safety data 
base that contains accident, roadway inventory, and traffic volume 
data. This data is used to study current highway safety issues (for 
example the evaluation of the Safety Effects of Cross-Section Design on 
Rural Multilane Highways was one successful study completed), direct 
research efforts, and evaluate the effectiveness of crash 
countermeasures. The finite element simulation models being developed 
will reduce the time and cost involved with testing roadside safety 
hardware and the prototype driver model will result in highway design, 
better accommodating driver behavior in response to traffic control 
devices, highway geometrics and safety countermeasures. The HF labs are 
used extensively to better understand driver behavior and drives 
performance. The results of this research are used to develop products 
such as design guidelines that practitioners use to design safer and 
more efficient roadways. The application of technology to improve 
safety within the transportation system is still an area in need of 
further development. One area that has shown promise is the 
implementation of active roadside warning systems that alert drivers to 
impending problems at the time the problem exists.
    Question. How are you going to implement the directive that the 
total fiscal year 1998 funds related to safety research and development 
exceed the total amount allocated during fiscal year 1997? Assume full 
authorization of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation and quantify your 
answer.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997, $11,495,399 was awarded for safety 
research and development. At this time it would be premature to 
indicate how we will comply with the directive as fiscal year 1998 
funding has not been fully appropriated.
                               structures
    Question. Last year the Committee directed FHWA to pursue research 
into high performance materials and bridge systems which could be 
applied to improve safety, function, durability, and renewability with 
minimal cost and environmental impact. Please provide an update on the 
progress of this research effort.
    Answer. The high performance materials research program advances 
technology related to structural concrete, steel, and composites. For 
high performance concrete, two fiscal year 1998 studies are planned, 
but not initiated due to the lack of an authorization bill. Those 
studies related to concrete include efforts to compile, review, and 
evaluate the data resulting from the testing and monitoring of FHWA-
State bridge and research projects for high performance concrete (HPC). 
To date, there have been 15 bridge construction projects in 12 States. 
The study will analyze the data and develop guidelines and new design 
equations for material and structural behavior such as: mix design, 
prestress losses, camber, Young's Modulus, maximum internal 
temperature, shear testing, bond, tensile strength and quality 
assurance and quality control. The results will be presented in a 
format suitable for inclusion in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for 
Bridge Design, the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Bridge Design 
Specifications and the AASHTO Materials Specifications. A second study 
will determine the adequacy of the equations in the current AASHTO 
Bridge specifications for bond between lightweight HPC and 
pretensioning strands. A study initiated in fiscal year 1997 is 
beginning to show results for the development of an HPC permeability 
test for in place concrete structures (those existing structures which 
in addition to steel reinforcement have admixtures which make the 
concrete HPC).
    Again, due to the lack of an authorization bill no new studies for 
the advancement of high performance steel (HPS) have been initiated. 
However studies will advance the development of a higher strength steel 
(grade 100W) and innovative designs to take advantage of the properties 
of HPS for cost reduction and durability. Two HPS bridges (of lower 
strength) have been constructed in Nebraska and Tennessee. Research 
initiated for the development of a lower grade, 70W HPS is drawing to a 
conclusion with its off the shelf availability from the steel industry. 
The optimized use of HPS has demonstrated technical advantages 
including improved fatigue behavior and project cost reduction for use 
in the field.
    The program in advanced composites will move ahead once the 
authorization bill is complete to advance technology for bonding the 
material to existing concrete and steel bridges which are in need of 
strengthening or repair. Advanced composites afford the opportunity to 
extend the useful service life of existing bridges which seem to have 
reached premature life expectancy. Use of these space age materials for 
rehabilitation will afford additional years of bridge service to owners 
who would otherwise have to perform more costly, lengthy repair 
projects.
    Question. The Committee directed FHWA to work with an academic and 
industry-led national consortium and fund with available balances an 
advanced composite bridge project to demonstrate the applications of an 
all-composite bridge for civil infrastructure purposes. What is the 
status of this effort to date?
    Answer. FHWA has not as yet initiated the study as requested due to 
the lack of an authorization bill. However, a report written by an 
academic institution under contract to FHWA who was also a major 
contributor in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency consortia 
for advanced composites research has been reviewed and indicates that 
an ``all composite'' bridge is not feasible from a technical and 
economic point of view. The report points out that composites are 
extremely advantageous for use in certain critical elements of bridge 
construction. The conclusion indicates that bridging technology can be 
significantly improved when advanced composite materials are used or 
optimized in conjunction with other more traditional materials to take 
advantage of the best structural and material properties of each. FHWA 
is pursuing how best to involve academic and industry-led consortia in 
the development of this emerging technology.
                              environment
    Question. Please further explain the highway transportation aspects 
of your request for funds regarding environmental justice. Exactly how 
will those monies be used?
    Answer. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income 
Populations, requires 16 federal agencies, to the greatest extent 
practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of 
their mission by identifying and addressing disproportionate high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations 
and low-income populations. Consistent with the Executive Order, the 
Department of Transportation has also issued an Order. Both Orders 
reaffirm the principles and interrelationships of Title VI of the 1964 
Civil Rights Act and related statutes, the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA), and other Federal environmental laws.
    A priority of the FHWA's Environmental Research Program and FHWA's 
request for funding regarding environmental justice is to help FHWA, 
State DOT's, MPO's and other partners understand how to effectively 
assess, prevent, and address potential discriminatory effects and 
disproportionately high and adverse environmental and health effects of 
transportation decisions on low-income and minority populations. Early 
identification of potential effects requires transportation officials 
to understand the principles and interrelationships of Title VI, NEPA, 
and Environmental Justice and have the skills, tools, and information 
to assess project effects. FHWA will use the environmental research 
funds to (1) develop tools to identify and assess the impacts of 
transportation on low-income and minority populations; (2) develop case 
studies of ``success'' stories, best practices, and model community 
initiatives which embody the principles of environmental justice; (3) 
develop methodologies to assess community impacts and health and risk 
burdens on low income and minorities; and (4) conduct national 
conference and regional workshops to highlight exemplary projects that 
implemented principles of environmental justice, disseminate tools for 
identifying and addressing environmental justice, and provide 
information on the latest training material.
    Question. What are the major challenges that the environmental 
research program needs to address during fiscal year 1999, and how is 
this emphasis different from the fiscal year 1998 approach?
    Answer. Most of the challenges will remain the same as reported in 
last year's summary, with the notable addition of those posed by the 
Kyoto agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Major Challenges
    New Air Quality standards.--Changes to the national ambient air 
quality standards for ozone and fine particles were promulgated by the 
Environmental Protection Agency in July, 1997. Since highway travel 
contributes to both of these air pollutants, significant research will 
be needed to reestablish our understanding of the transportation 
sector's contributions to achieving the new standards along with 
methods of control. Previous attempts to define the linkages between 
transportation and air pollution have yielded incomplete answers and 
frequently have posed as many new questions as answers. The tighter 
standards announced last July are likely to result in more areas 
failing to meet these limits and falling under some level of 
transportation-emissions control.
    FHWA is beginning a mid- to long-term effort to fine-tune many of 
the less understood linkages between transportation and pollution. The 
agency is pursuing a number of efforts geared toward greater 
understanding of the formation of fine particulate matter, mitigation 
of this newly controlled pollutant, and strategies for reducing ground-
level ozone. We also anticipate research over the next few years on the 
emission characteristics of heavy duty diesel engines for which EPA has 
also published control standards. These efforts in addition to many 
other research endeavors will seek an improved knowledge base of the 
impacts that transportation activities may exert on air quality 
planing.
    Global Climate Change.--Although still to be ratified by the 
Senate, the climate change protocol reached during the Kyoto meetings 
may have substantial ramifications for the transportation community. 
The significant levels of greenhouse gas reductions anticipated by the 
Kyoto agreement may prompt consideration of a wide array of emissions 
sources and mitigation strategies. As mentioned above, much research 
will be required to uncover greater knowledge of the linkages between 
transportation and air pollution. In addition, technological research 
into advanced vehicles and fuels will be a necessity as we assess the 
role of electric vehicles, fuel cells, various hybrid engine designs, 
and other 21st century solutions that apply across the modal spectrum 
of transportation.
    Water Quality.--Changes to the Clean Water Act in 1987 established 
a two-phased approach to addressing stormwater discharges under the 
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Phase I is 
currently regulating stormwater sources of large and medium-sized 
municipalities (100,000 or greater in population) and industrial sites, 
including construction sites of at least 5 acres in size. Under Phase 
II, dischargers to be covered include communities of less than 100,000 
inhabitants and construction sites under 5 acres. EPA has issued draft 
regulations for Phase II stormwater sources which will be finalized by 
March 1999.
    The NPDES Phase II program will include, at a minimum, requirements 
for Water quality Best Management Practices (BMP's) at construction 
sites, BMP's for existing stormwater sources, and monitoring/
enforcement requirements for local communities. Our current and 
projected water quality research program includes BMP development and 
assessment, as well as, monitoring techniques and analysis of data. Our 
program will emphasize the cost and effectiveness of BMP's, 
particularly those appropriate for limited-space applications in urban 
areas.
    Another emphasis area of our research which has been stimulated by 
EPA requirements is the determination of possible water quality impacts 
from highway stormwater runoff. Our understanding of the chemical 
constituents in runoff is well documented. However, relatively little 
is understood regarding the impacts to water bodies that these 
constituents may pose. The effects of dilution, bio-availability, 
exposure time, and other factors must be determined before any 
conclusions about impacts are possible.
    Watersheds.--The recently released Clean Water Action Plan and 
changing requirements in various States indicate a coming need to 
incorporate watershed-based water resource protection and management 
into various highway planning, project development, and operation/
maintenance processes. Proposed research will integrate environmental 
and transportation planning and assessment (particularly in the 
watershed management and land-use planning arenas) and explore 
innovative ways to bring about a merger of the environment/planning and 
permit processes.
    Communities, Neighborhoods, and People.--The 1970 Federal Highway 
Act, passed the same time as the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), places a responsibility on FHWA to fully consider adverse 
effects of transportation on community cohesion; public facilities; 
employment; tax and property values; displacement of people, 
businesses, and farms; and community and regional growth. The U.S. DOT 
and FHWA Strategic Plans and the FHWA Environmental Policy Statement 
highlight the importance of putting people first and fully considering 
communities, neighborhoods, and people in transportation decision 
making. The President's Report on Sustainable Development underscores 
the importance of sustainable transportation projects that contribute 
to sustainable communities, and the DOT Livable Communities Program 
emphasizes that transportation is about more than concrete, asphalt, 
steel, and vehicles. It is also about people's day-to-day lives which 
are affected by the location and appearance of transportation 
facilities, the design of streets and sidewalks, and the placement of 
on-street parking. FHWA initiatives in ``Flexibility in Highway 
Design'' further emphasize providing safe and community friendly 
transportation projects nationwide.
    A priority within the environmental research program is to help 
FHWA, State DOT's, Federal agencies, Native American tribes, grassroot 
groups and the public understand how to ensure full consideration of 
communities, neighborhoods, and people in transportation decision 
making. To meet this goal, FHWA will be developing and disseminating 
the skills, tools, and information needed to achieve effective 
transportation decision making that protect and enhance the human 
environment and quality of life through full consideration of 
communities, neighborhoods, and people.
    Integrated Decisionmaking.--The U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) have been working 
together to make the transportation decisionmaking and NEPA process 
more efficient and more effective. Through joint efforts with the CEQ, 
the U.S. DOT has brought together Federal, State, and local officials 
and non-governmental representatives across the country to share 
innovative ideas and to recommend ways to effectively integrate the 
NEPA process in transportation decision making.
    As a result of these efforts, National Performance Review 
recommendations, and Congressional interest, FHWA is seeking ways to 
redesign Federal environmental and transportation decision making to 
ensure an integrated process at the Federal, State, tribal, and local 
levels that achieves the best overall public interest decisions.
    In order to achieve the intentions of the ISTEA, and other 
legislation and initiatives, FHWA and its partners must achieve and 
practice an environmental ethic that accomplishes transportation goals 
in accordance with environmental standards through shared decision 
making with other stakeholders in the process. This requires 
environmentally conscious leadership within transportation agencies. 
Furthermore, as FHWA, States, and other partners seek to meet 
transportation needs that involves the potential for impacts to 
communities and natural resources, we must use, through shared 
decisionmaking, a balanced decisionmaking process that considers 
impacts to resources, along with their societal values, and the 
transportation needs.
    A priority within the environmental research program is to help 
FHWA, State DOT's, local entities, Federal agencies, Native American 
tribes and the public understand how to effectively integrate 
environmental and transportation decision making to achieve decisions 
in the best overall public interest. To meet this goal, FHWA will 
develop and disseminate the skills, tools, and information to redesign 
Federal environmental and transportation decision making, and to ensure 
an integrated process at the Federal, State, tribal, and local levels 
that achieves the best overall public interest decisions.
    Environmental Justice and Non-discrimination.--The President's 
Executive Order No. 12898, DOT Order, and FHWA Order on environmental 
justice direct that programs, policies, and activities not have a 
disproportionately high and adverse health and environmental effect on 
minority and low-income communities. These orders are a reaffirmation 
of the principles of Title VI and related statutes, the NEPA process, 
and other Federal environmental laws.
    It has been FHWA's longstanding policy to actively ensure 
nondiscrimination in Federally funded activities under Title VI of the 
1964 Civil Rights Act. Under Title VI and related statutes, each 
Federal agency is required to ensure that no person is excluded from 
participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination 
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance on 
the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, or 
religion.
    FHWA's commitment to prevent potential discriminatory effects and 
disproportionately high and adverse health and environmental effects of 
transportation decisions on low-income and minority populations has 
placed renewed emphasis on nondiscrimination and environmental justice. 
FHWA will ensure environmental justice by administering a 
transportation system that does not unfairly affect any one segment of 
our society and that equitably distributes benefits as well. To meet 
these goals, the FHWA will ensure an unprecedented level of 
collaboration and consensus-building with all its partners.
    A priority within the environmental research program is to help 
FHWA, state DOT's, grassroot groups, Native American tribes, the 
public, and other partners understand how to effectively assess, 
prevent, and address potential discriminatory effects and 
disproportionately high and adverse environmental and health effects of 
transportation decisions on low-income and minority populations.
Additional Research
    National Environmental Research Needs Conference.--An Environmental 
Research Needs Conference, jointly sponsored by the Transportation 
Research Board (TRB), the Center for Transportation and the Environment 
(CTE) at North Carolina State University, FHWA, and FTA was conducted 
November 14-16, 1996, in Washington, D.C. The participants generated 
approximately 95 detailed problem statements for critical environmental 
research needs totaling over $28 million.
    Development of FHWA Environmental Research Strategic Plan.--The 
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning is 
nearing completion of the development of the Strategic Plan for 
Environmental Research, 1998-2003. The plan establishes a research 
agenda for the Environmental Research Program in eight program areas, 
which cover environmental, social, and economic issues.
    Development of the strategic plan was initiated nearly two years 
ago, and relied on input from several previously held conferences and 
recent reports, which identified research needs related to 
transportation and the environment. Two particular reports reflected in 
the plan's development and content are the Transportation Research 
Board (TRB) Circular 469, Environmental Research Needs in 
Transportation, and the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee 
(RTCC) report, Clean Air and Highway Transportation. Circular 469 is a 
compilation of research problem statements generated during the 1996 
Environmental Research Needs Conference held at the TRB offices in 
Washington, D.C.
    A major level of input into the plan was provided through a focus 
group meeting with stakeholders and customers, who reviewed plan drafts 
and assembled during a one-day meeting, conducted at the TRB Offices. 
The Focus Group Meeting, held on November 19, 1997, was attended by 
representatives of national public and private organizations, Federal 
agencies, local governments, State departments of transportation, 
interest groups, and academic institutions. Many of the ideas, 
concerns, and feedback received were incorporated into the final 
strategic research plan.
    Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) Report.--The 
RTCC of the TRB recommended short and long term air quality research 
needs and organizational reform to improve coordination between FHWA 
and EPA.
                                 policy
    Question. Please further explain the request for $500,000 for 
contractor support services.
    Answer. The cost represents charges for contract personnel who 
provide on-going on-site support to the policy research program. These 
individuals are typically deployed to provide specialized technical and 
administrative skills necessary for a specific project or program area. 
Typical services provided include the analysis of various statistical 
submittal by the States and software development, modification, and 
application in response to programmatic requirements.
    Question. Please specify total expenditures for fiscal year 1997, 
fiscal year 1998, and planned for fiscal year 1999 for all activities 
related to policy research.
    Answer. The following table identifies these expenditures.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Funds by source
                                                                          --------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Cost
                         Fiscal year                           All funds                              allocation
                                                                             Research       6005      line item
                                                                                                          2B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................        7,428        5,328        1,800          300
1998 \1\....................................................        2,452        2,452      ( \2\ )      ( \3\ )
1999........................................................        6,362        6,362      ( \4\ )      ( \3\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because there was no reauthorization, resources were prioritized for salaries over R&D.
\2\ None.
\3\ Not Applicable.
\4\ Unknown.

                                planning
    Question. The conference agreement did not provide any funding for 
the sustainable transportation initiative under the planning 
subaccount. During fiscal year 1998, have any FHWA contract or LGOE 
monies been used for this purpose? If so, please specify the exact 
amount and the specific funding source including which specific area 
(pavements, structure, etc.)?
    Answer. The FHWA has not funded projects specifically targeted 
toward the sustainable transportation initiative from contract or LGOE 
funds in fiscal year 1998.
    Question. Please justify in extensive detail why the funds for 
sustainable communities research needs to increase from $0 to $5 
million. What is the analytical basis for the request? Exactly why is 
$5 million required? How was this determined?
    Answer. The FHWA requested $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 for its 
Sustainable Transportation Initiative. This level of funding will 
provide resources for FHWA to begin a balanced range of initiatives in 
the development of this new program area. The proposed funding level 
will enable FHWA to begin research to address sustain ability issues: 
support State and local agencies to test and evaluate innovations that 
can begin to be used now; work closely with State and local agencies 
and other partners and stakeholders to define the performance measures 
and additional research that is needed; and begin to share this 
information and best practices as it becomes available. Providing a 
balanced framework for the development of this new initiative that 
includes research, outreach, grants for case studies, performance 
measures, and technical assistance will effectively assist the 
transportation community to begin addressing its role in global climate 
change and sustain ability.
    At least half of these funds would be used for grants by State and 
local governments for analytical case studies and pilot projects to 
test and evaluate sustain ability initiatives. A portion of the funds 
would be used to initiate research on land use, travel behavior, and 
the development of analytical tools. The Transportation Research 
Board's report, Toward a Sustainable Future and the National Science 
and Technology Council's Committee on Transportation Research and 
Development have identified transportation research that is needed in 
sustain ability. The remaining funds would be used to work with State 
and local agencies and other partners and stakeholders to develop 
performance measures for sustain ability, identify additional research 
needs, share best practices and provide technical assistance.
    The basic concept of sustain ability is to use resources today in a 
manner that does not preclude options for future generations. Sustain 
ability is an emerging issue in a broad range of public policy areas 
including sustainable development, communities, agriculture, energy 
sources, as well as transportation. Applying the concept of sustain 
ability to transportation will require transportation planning and 
operational decisions be made to ensure mobility and accessibility meet 
today's needs for goods and services in a manner that balances short 
and long term economic growth, environmental quality, and social 
equity.
    Global climate change is an immediate priority in sustain ability 
because changes in ocean levels, rainfall patterns, and temperatures 
would adversely impact future generations. Industrial production, 
buildings, and transportation each account for about one third of 
greenhouse gases from human activities in the U.S. Therefore, the 
transportation sector will play a significant role in developing 
programs and policies to begin to address this. Global climate change 
is a primary focus for sustain ability and transportation. However, 
other sustain ability issues in transportation are very important and 
must be addressed. These include, for example, land development 
patterns, travel behavior and demand, habitat and ecosystems, and 
community values and needs. Some of the strategies to begin to address 
these include advanced technologies for vehicles and fuels, making the 
most efficient use of current transportation infrastructure and 
systems, and coordinating land use decisions and transportation needs.
    Question. Please provide more information on the request for 
TRANSIMS totaling $5,000,000 in your budget justification.
    Answer. Activities planned for accomplishment in fiscal year 1999 
include an activity generation methodology, feedback methods between 
various TRANSIMS modules, implementation of procedures to select 
activity location, completion of the interface between the traffic 
micro-simulation module and the emissions module, completion of 
research on the medium and heavy duty vehicle (freight) emissions 
module and the inclusion transit, freight, walk and bicycle modes 
within the traffic simulator.
    These activities will require 23 full time professional staff, 7 
graduate students, two post-doctoral students, subcontracts to the 
National Institute of Statistical Sciences for activity based research, 
subcontracts to groups specializing in graphics capabilities, and 
subcontracts for technical support on the development of the emissions 
module. The Los Alamos National Laboratory provides for very high speed 
computer capabilities, enabling the basic research to proceed at a much 
faster pace than would be supported by conventional computers. Travel 
costs to Portland, Oregon to continue the case study are included along 
with travel to the Transportation Research Board and other forums to 
present TRANSIMS results to potential users.
    In addition to the above, in fiscal year 1999, we will begin the 
early stages of the deployment of TRANSIMS. Current plans call for 
soliciting interest from contractors in packaging TRANSIMS in a user 
friendly format, requesting interest from MPO's to be early users of 
TRANSIMS, and preparation of documentation and training materials for 
potential users.
    Question. How much money was allocated to TRANSIMS during fiscal 
year 1995, fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 and 
how much is planned for fiscal year 1999? Please break out all FHWA 
monies, including LGOE and contract monies, spent on this activity.
    Answer. The table below shows how funding allocations for TRANSIMS.

                                    FUNDING FOR TRANSIMS, FISCAL YEAR 1995-98
                                                 [In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year--
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1995      1996      1997      1998      1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOE-FHWA:
    Planning..................................................    $1,350    $1,500    $2,000    $2,000    $1,800
    ITS.......................................................       500  ........  ........  ........     2,000
6005--FHWA \1\................................................     1,400     2,000     2,500     2,900     1,100
FTA...........................................................       500       500  ........  ........       200
EPA...........................................................       250       525       275       100       100
OST...........................................................  ........  ........  ........  ........       300
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL...................................................     4,000     4,525     4,775  \2\ 5,00  \2\ 5,50
                                                                                                     0         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 6005 funds in ISTEA through fiscal year 1997; anticipate continued funding as part of reauthorization.
\2\ FHWA needs $5 million in fiscal year 1998 and $5.5 million in fiscal year 1999 for TRANSIMS from all
  sources. Because of the delay in reauthorization, FHWA has diverted available Planning R&D GOE funds (above
  $2,000 million shown) to support TRANSIMS. Should reauthorization legislation provide funds directly for
  TRANSIMS, FHWA will deobligate the additional GOE funds for TRANSIMS so they may be used for other Planning
  R&D priorities as originally planned.

    Question. House Report 104-631 addressed the Committee's concern 
over the amount of current and planned expenditures for the TRANSIMS 
program. What has been done to contain costs and to reduce laboratory 
overhead charges?
    Answer. As stated in our letter of May 12, 1997, FHWA has continued 
its efforts to contain costs on the TRANSIMS project. FHWA has pursued 
two types of cost containment measures, direct actions which limit 
staff costs and reduce overhead, and actions to limit expenditures by 
drawing on existing research and software.
    With respect to direct cost containment, the LANL recently lowered 
the overhead rates on all projects and TRANSIMS benefitted from this. 
The TRANSIMS effort also makes extensive use of post-doctoral research 
fellows and graduate students, paid in accordance with University of 
California guidelines at a lower rate than regular staff employees. The 
LANL overhead covers the use of high speed computing capability to aid 
in TRANSIMS research, a capability which would not be available in 
other research institutions.
    The TRANSIMS effort makes extensive use of outside expertise and 
integrates research done by others. Specific uses of outside sources 
include cooperating with the National Cooperative Highway Research 
Program to obtain data and models on vehicle modal emissions, obtaining 
data from the University of West Virginia on medium and heavy duty 
vehicle emissions, developing TRANSIMS activity based forecasting 
procedures from work begun by the National Institute of Statistical 
Sciences and the Metropolitan Portland Council of Governments, and the 
use of contractors to advise on specific portions of TRANSIMS. The LANL 
have drawn extensively on simulation technologies developed for the 
Department of Defense for the TRANSIMS traffic simulator. Without the 
availability of these technologies the costs of TRANSIMS would be 
prohibitively expensive. TRANSIMS also uses commercial software when 
available, thereby reducing the cost of software development.
    Without the above measures, costs of TRANSIMS would have been 
significantly higher or the quality of the final product would have 
been compromised.
    Question. Please prepare a table showing the expected sums required 
for each of the next five years to bring TRANSIMS to completion, 
breaking out both FWHA and other expected cost-shared funds. When will 
the FHWA support for TRANSIMS be substantially diminished?
    Answer. The table below summarizes the estimate of funds necessary 
to complete the development of TRANSIMS by the Los Alamos Laboratories 
(with ITS), the packaging of TRANSIMS for deployment, and providing 
support to State and local agencies in the deployment of TRANSIMS.

                     ESTIMATE OF FUNDS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE TRANSIMS, FISCAL YEAR 1998-2002
                                                 [In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year--
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1998      1999      2000      2001      2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds required:
    TRANSIMS..................................................    $4,500    $3,000      $500      $500      $500
    ITS.......................................................  ........     2,000     2,000     2,000  ........
    Deployment................................................       500       500     3,000     1,500     1,500
    Local Agency Support......................................  ........  ........     3,000     3,000     2,000
Fund Sources:
    FHWA......................................................     4,900     4,800     7,800     5,800     3,300
    FTA.......................................................  ........       200       200       200       200
    EPA.......................................................       100       500       500       500       500
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................................     5,000     5,500     8,500     6,500     4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time we estimate that EPA funding of approximately $500,000 
per year and FTA funding of approximately $200,000 per year beginning 
in fiscal year 1999. The cost of TRANSIMS development will 
significantly decline after fiscal year 1999. We do anticipate that 
ongoing improvements to TRANSIMS will continue, but at a lower level of 
funding than TRANSIMS development. The cost of packaging, deployment 
and early financial support will peak in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal 
year 2001, then decline. FHWA will provide ongoing technical support 
for TRANSIMS, just as the agency provides support for current travel 
forecasting procedures.
    Question. What did you do to seek additional non-DOT funds for the 
TRANSIMS? How successful were you? Please show all contributions for 
each of the last three years.
    Answer. The table below shows all contributions of non-DOT funds 
for fiscal years 1995-1998.

      FUNDING FOR TRANSIMS FROM NON-DOT FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 1995-98
                             [In thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                    1995      1996      1997      1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA.............................      $500      $500      $275      $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has a major interest in the development of TRANSIMS. FHWA 
has continually sought funds from the EPA and have received commitments 
to support TRANSIMS development. A multi-agency group manages TRANSIMS 
and EPA participates in this group. EPA funding in fiscal year 1998 is 
lower than in previous years due to one-time EPA administrative 
expenses. EPA has indicated willingness to provide funding in future 
years. EPA not only provides financial support to TRANSIMS but also 
actively cooperates with DOT in establishing methods to implement 
TRANSIMS within the guidelines of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
    Question. If funds are going to be provided for TRANSIMS under the 
reauthorization bill, why are LGOE monies also needed?
    Answer. FHWA is in a transition from relying primarily LGOE funds 
for TRANSIMS to relying primarily on funds available through 
authorizing legislation. There will continue to be uncertainty about 
available funding until reauthorization is complete. Additional LGOE 
funds are critical to ensure the completion and deployment of TRANSIMS 
including technical assistance to local areas for the implementation of 
TRANSIMS.
    Question. Have you received any requests from States that would 
like to participate in sustainable transportation research or 
demonstration projects? What are the proposed state projects?
    Answer. The FHWA has not yet requested proposals or made funds 
available specifically for sustainability projects. However, interest 
in sustainability is growing and State and local agencies are 
interested in information and analytical tools. Several national 
transportation conferences in the last year have specifically focused 
on the issues of sustainability in transportation. In addition, the 
Transportation Research Board's recent report, Toward a Sustainable 
Future, was a topic of panel and committee discussions at its annual 
conference.
    States, metropolitan, and local areas are working on various 
aspects of land use and transportation planning that can become a part 
of the broader sustain ability agenda. For example, a number of States 
are working to learn to manage growth to make most efficient use of 
existing infrastructure and services. In addition, metropolitan areas 
are looking for ways to develop growth plans that make the most 
efficient use of land development and transportation infrastructure. In 
some large regional areas, multiple jurisdiction are working together 
to investigate ways to balance growing demands for development while 
maintaining the quality of life, mobility and accessibility, and 
protecting the environmentally sensitive areas from development 
pressure. Local towns are working to balance plans for continuing 
economic development with quality of life and the environment. Each of 
these efforts opens additional broader questions from the sustain 
ability perspective. Applying the criteria of sustain ability will 
expand the decisions, analysis and tools to include meeting both short 
and long term needs plus actively working to balance and maximize 
economic growth, environmental quality, and social equity. FHWA's 
sustain ability initiative will support the State and local agencies in 
beginning to address these issues through case study evaluations, 
conducting research on land use and travel behavior, developing 
analytical tools and processes that can be used by all, and sharing 
best practices.
                             motor carrier
    Question. Last year, the conferees included sufficient funds to 
conduct a study on the prevalence of sleep apnea in truck drivers. What 
did you do to respond to that initiative? What specific contracts have 
you or will you sign to implement that directive? Please specify the 
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 funding amounts allocated in that 
area.
    Answer. Sleep apnea may be an important cause of driving impairment 
and potentially, truck accidents among CMV drivers. While it is 
estimated that between 5-10 percent of CMV drivers, in particular those 
aged 40 or over and/or overweight, may suffer from sleep apnea, the 
prevalence of sleep apnea in commercial drivers is not known and, 
moreover, the level of sleep apnea at which a driver's ability to 
operate safely is impaired is also unknown. The objectives of FHWA-
sponsored research in this area are to get a handle on prevalence and 
how apnea affects driving.
    Currently, the FHWA has completed overnight studies of 250 drivers 
at high risk for sleep apnea. A draft final report on prevalence and 
performance of this sample of drivers is in progress and the final 
report should be completed by Spring, 1998.
    Fiscal year 1997--No additional funding allocated.
    Fiscal year 1998--No additional funding allocated.
    Future Research.--Based on Congressional direction to study sleep 
apnea and peer review (11/97) recommendations to conduct follow-on 
research of truck drivers at low-risk for sleep apnea, the FHWA will 
request a technical proposal from ATA/TRI. A study of low risk drivers 
would generate an overall prevalence estimate in this population of 
truck drivers. It would identify and evaluate remedial measures 
including screening and detection technologies. The request for a 
technical proposal will be initiated upon acceptance of the final 
report on truck drivers at high risk for sleep apnea.
    Fiscal year 1997--No additional funding allocated.
    Fiscal year 1998--$500,000 allocated; $200,000 has been obligated; 
remaining $300,000 to be obligated upon availability of all fiscal year 
1998 appropriation for OMC Research and Technology.
    Question. The conferees included sufficient funds for an 
operational test and validation of technological aids to improve 
fatigue management. What did you do to respond to that initiative? What 
specific contracts have you or will you sign to implement that 
directive? Please specify the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 
funding amounts of each.
    Answer. A number of projects undertaken during recent years have 
helped to set the stage for an operational tests of technological aids 
(such as the actigraph) to improve fatigue management. Below are listed 
several relevant projects (and fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 
funding, if applicable):
  --Driver Work/Rest Cycles/U.S. Army Actigraph Study (in final year of 
        cooperative project involving FAA, FRA, and the U.S. Army);
  --Cost-Benefit Study of Electronic On-Board Recorders (completed);
  --Conference on Driver Vigilance Monitoring ($40,000 in fiscal year 
        1997 Activity 13 R&T funds); and
  --Ocular (Eye) Dynamics as Early Indicators of Driver Fatigue 
        ($133,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $133,000 in fiscal year 1998 
        Activity 13 R&T funds).
    Projects under consideration for initiation during fiscal year 1998 
include phase 1 (assessment and planning) of the main operational test 
of technological aids to fatigue management and an adjunct study of in-
vehicle technology and commercial motor vehicle driver performance 
management which would emphasize fatigue management. The fiscal year 
1998 starts are contingent on fund availability; to date, the OMC has 
received authority to obligate less than half of its authorized $7.4 
million in fiscal year 1998 R&T funds. We have had to apply available 
funds to sustaining ongoing research, limiting our ability to proceed 
with new starts in this technology-related area.
    In addition to the above, the ITS program, through the OMC ITS/CVO 
division and the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Research, has been 
conducting a major on-road validation of technologies for continuous 
in-vehicle driver alertness monitoring. ITS funding of $195,000 in 
fiscal year 1997 and $582,000 in fiscal year 1998 has been provided to 
this on-road study. An adjunct laboratory study to validate eye and 
other psychophysiological monitors and to develop a safety-effective 
driver-vehicle interface received approximately $356,000 in fiscal year 
1997 ITS funds and has pending $201,000 in fiscal year 1998 ITS funds.
    Question. Exactly what would be done with the $500,000 requested 
under regulatory reform? Won't the private sector conduct similar 
activities?
    Answer. This money would be used to continue the Zero Base 
Regulatory Review Project. This Project is currently in the third of 
four phases and will result in a clearer, better organized version of 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The regulations are 
Federal rules regulating the safety and other aspects of the motor 
carrier industry. They can only be amended by the Executive Branch 
acting through the designated agency, the Federal Highway 
Administration.
    Question. What new rules would be issued? Will those really be 
``new'' or will they be reorganized rules with unnecessary and obsolete 
portions removed?
    Answer. The new rules to be issued will be the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulations in their entirety. They will be totally new 
in organization and format, with a few changes in the substantive 
rules, particularly where performance-based alternatives have been 
created. At the same time, the FHWA is conducting two other efforts: 
(1) the removal of obsolete and redundant regulations, and (2) several 
major rulemakings which draw upon the agency's latest research. All 
three efforts are expected to take place concurrently, and thus the 
final product will encompass the FHWA's most up-to-date effort in a 
performance-based approach to regulation.
    Question. The media have reported that TRI and FHWA will provide 
500 commercial drivers with free, one-year membership to fitness 
centers. How much is FHWA contributing to this study? Why is the 
project of critical importance?
    Answer. The FHWA-TRI Truck Stop Fitness Facility Utilization Study 
(TSFFUS) is one of about 20 projects in the Congressionally-directed 
Cooperative Agreement between the American Trucking Associations 
Foundation's Trucking Research Institute and the OMC. Consistent with 
the language in Conference report 104-286 to accompany H.R. 2002, the 
Department of Transportation's Appropriation Bill (Public Law 104-50), 
the purpose of the Cooperative Agreement is to address a number of 
motor carrier safety issues, such as: driver fatigue and alertness; the 
implementation and dissemination of emerging safety-related 
technologies; productively and regulatory compliance; and commercial 
driver training, licensing and education.
    The TRI and OMC have agreed to allocate $257,000 of the $5 million 
Cooperative Agreement (which includes $1 million for the National 
Private Truck Council) for the TSFFUS. The planned 500 participants in 
the study will receive a one-year free membership to the truck stop 
fitness facilities involved in the study. An organization called The 
Rolling Strong Company is providing the truck stop gyms. The 
memberships were obtained at a cost of $100 each (as opposed to the 
nearly $400 regular annual membership fee). As a condition of receiving 
this membership, drivers will be required to respond to a series of 
questionnaires to assess a number of areas, including: how frequently 
participants use the truck stop gyms; when do the drivers work out; do 
they feel better; are they making any other positive lifestyle changes; 
and are they getting other drivers to start an exercise program. Note 
that Rolling Strong Company is a private company. The TRI and the OMC 
did not fund the design or construction of the gyms; we are only 
evaluating the concept of truck-stop fitness.
    The Truck Stop Fitness Utilization Study is a innovative, holistic 
approach for improving highway safety. Truck driving, particularly long 
haul truck driving, is largely sedentary in nature with few 
opportunities to exercise. About 50 percent of all adult Americans are 
overweight and data suggest that an even larger percentage of truck 
drivers are overweight. Regular aerobic exercise not only helps get and 
keep one in shape, but according to the American Heart Association, it 
also combats fatigue, reduces stress, improves alertness and enhances 
sleep quality. As a result, truck drivers will be better rested and 
more alert for another day of driving. A healthier and fit driver will, 
over the long run, tend to be a better and safer driver.
    Question. Given the numerous other priorities for research funds, 
how did you determine that a wellness study was a high priority 
research activity?
    Answer. Altogether, the FHWA has underway more than 20 research, 
regulatory and outreach projects relating to truck-driver fatigue and 
alertness. Our main thrusts are regulatory hours-of-service changes, 
research on specific operational issues (e.g., sleeper berth), and 
research and development relating to in-vehicle alertness and 
performance. The Truck Stop Fitness Utilization Study is one of several 
adjunct driver wellness/lifestyle initiatives, not a central 
countermeasure or ``solution'' to driver fatigue. The project is not 
``high priority'' in relation to other FHWA projects more directly 
related to specific fatigue countermeasures or hours-of-service issues. 
However, the issue of CMV driver physical-fitness level does have 
safety relevance and warrants this one-time government program to 
stimulate the provision of better opportunities for exercise for CMV 
drivers. A relatively small investment by government/industry to 
evaluate this concept could result in long-term payoffs by improving 
CMV driver health and, therefore, alertness and safety.
    Question. Do you envision that the States would do the crash 
causation research requested under information analysis? How much is 
planned for this activity?
    Answer. OMC is currently developing a commercial vehicle crash 
causation coding scheme with the University of Michigan Transportation 
Research Institute. OMC has plans to encourage States to adopt this 
coding scheme when they investigate truck and bus crashes. Ultimately, 
OMC plans to build a national database of truck and bus crash causes 
with data supplied by volunteer States. While OMC intends to use State-
collected data for this research, there are no plans at this time to 
ask States to conduct research. Costs for building a crash causation 
database are dependent on the success of working with our State 
partners. If these efforts are successful and timely, the costs may be 
under $500,000 for building this National database. However, if OMC's 
data needs are not met through these cooperative efforts, a separate 
intensive crash causation research project will be considered, and, if 
funds are available, implemented.
    Question. As part of your jurisdiction for $1.9 million under the 
technology category of motor carrier research, FHWA uses the rationale 
used to justify the proposed National Technology Deployment program. 
Motor carrier activities would be eligible expense under this proposed 
contract program. Why then, are additional GOE funds for similar 
purposes also requested under motor carrier research?
    Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has conducted its 
technology research activities under the assumption that innovative 
safety technologies, however originated, may require OMC research 
program support under LGOE. This would occur in the event that 
implementation funding is not forthcoming from the originating 
organization (e.g., ITS/CVO or NHTSA), and the OMC concludes that the 
technology warrants OMC research and technology support through an 
investment in information dissemination, education and training, or 
demonstration piloting.
    In fiscal year 1998, the OMC supports the implementation of the 
proposed NTDI program, because it may permit us to broaden our 
technology training and dissemination efforts. However, we cannot 
assume that the program will be implemented by the Congress this year. 
Also, the final criteria for receipt of funding under the NTDI have not 
been provided to us, so we cannot be assured that all needed 
technological research would be so fundable. For this reason, we must 
continue to plan for an allocation of LGOE resources to support 
priority technology projects.
    Question. Please break out the specific funding request for each 
project under the category ``technology.''
    Answer. For fiscal year 1999, the OMC now estimates that the 
following technology projects will require R&T funds as indicated:

Deployment of Fatigue-Related Technologies....................  $150,000
Evaluation of Hazardous Materials Transportation..............   250,000
Innovative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Strategies.........   150,000
Marketing of SAFER/Carrier Register...........................   200,000
Automated Safety Assistance Program (ASAP)....................   200,000
New Brake Inspection Technologies.............................   200,000
Cargo Tank Safety.............................................   250,000
Iowa Simulator Support........................................   500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      TOTAL................................................... 1,900,000

    Question. Please prepare a table estimating the amount of funds 
spent on fatigue-related research for each of the last five years.
    Answer. The following chart describes estimated spending between 
fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1997 on research relating to 
commercial driver fatigue and alertness:

Fatigue related research

Fiscal year:
    1993......................................................$2,283,992
    1994......................................................   728,072
    1995...................................................... 1,684,419
    1996...................................................... 2,551,910
    1997...................................................... 1,677,982

    Question. OMC recently conducted a study to determine the general 
random condition of trucks and drivers. What were the results of this 
study and how much did it cost? How much are you requesting in fiscal 
year 1999 to update this effort? Why can't that project be conducted 
every two years?
    Answer. In the summer of 1996, OMC conducted the National Fleet 
Safety Survey (NFSS) to determine the true out-of-service rate for 
large trucks and their drivers. Based on over 10,000 random Level 1 
inspections, the national vehicle and driver out-of-service rates were 
found to be 29 percent and 5 percent, respectively. These rates were 
slightly lower than similar rates obtained from fiscal year 1996 MCSAP 
``nonrandom'' inspections and the differences were found to be 
statistically significant.
    Since the inspections for the NFSS were conducted by State MCSAP 
inspectors, the data collection costs were minimal, approximately 
$6,000. Data processing costs were approximately $5,000. The sample 
design and statistical analysis costs were approximately $70,000.
    OMC plans to conduct the NFSS every two years. The next NFSS is 
scheduled for the summer of 1998.
    Question. During the few years, FHWA completed several studies on 
the medical requirements for drivers. Which studies have been 
completed? Were these studies ever published?
    Answer. The information provided in the following chart includes 
study reports on medical requirements for drivers, initiated/completed 
by FHWA in the past 3 years:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Published/
             Title                 Completed       Released     NTIS PB No.                 Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Role of driver hearing in       August 1997....  Yes.........  98-114606....  Completed August 1997.
 commercial motor vehicle
 operations: An evaluation of
 the FHWA hearing requirement.
Research on Sleep Apnea and     ...............  ............  .............  Task A report on high-risk drivers
 commercial Drivers--TASK A.                                                   to be completed spring 1998.
Medical Panels--Visual          ...............  ............  .............  Final report, Medically-Based
 disorders and commercial                                                      Recommendations for Amending the
 drivers.                                                                      Vision Requirements, to be
                                                                               completed July 1998.
Insulin-treated diabetes and    ...............  ............  .............  Research ongoing; final report due
 job performance.                                                              December 1998.
Review of State medical         June 1997......  Yes.........  97-19393.....  Final report submitted to FHWA in
 infrastructures--update of                                                    June 1997; this is a resource
 medical review practices and                                                  document for FHWA rulemaking and
 procedures in U.S. and                                                        research activities.
 Canadian CDL programs.
Commercial Truck and Bus        ...............  ............  .............  Final report to be completed May
 Driver wellness program.                                                      1999.
Qualifications of Drivers--     January 1998...  ............  .............  Final descriptive report to be
 Vision, Diabetes, Hearing and                                                 published (NTIS) Spring 1998.
 Epilepsy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           highway operations
    Question. What is the empirical basis used to determine the $2 
million requested for highway operations? Won't the NTDI, if 
authorized, provide sufficient funds for work on highway operations?
    Answer. The $2 million requested for fiscal year 1999 will be 
focused on closing a gap in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
by initiating a highway operations research program that will 
complement the National Technology and Deployment Initiative (NTDI). 
Basically, where the NTDI will be used to test, evaluate and deploy, 
the FHWA is seeking funding to establish a research program to provide 
a complete highway operations program within the research and 
technology structure.
    Highway operations is an important and developing program segment 
within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This program 
addresses actions that do not appropriately fit into other areas such 
as pavements, structures, safety and intelligent transportation 
systems--all of whom have both a research and a technology deployment 
program. Highway operations responds to the actual movement of people 
and goods on our Nation's streets and highways whereas other areas tend 
to be more infrastructure related.
    The Highway Operations program is in direct response to customers' 
(highway users) concerns voiced in the recent National Quality 
Initiative Survey. Responding to the survey, the FHWA's primary focus 
in Highway Operations, in concert with its Strategic Plan, will be to 
improve mobility, safety and productivity by reducing motorist delay in 
(1) construction and maintenance work zones and (2) on existing roadway 
facilities. The FHWA will be implementing a program which includes 
major areas of high performance construction and maintenance methods, 
high performance materials and innovative management and specification 
strategies. This program will result in:
  --Reduced exposure and risk to the traveling public and the highway 
        worker due to construction and maintenance and operations thus 
        improving overall safety and congestion.
  --Improved work methods, practices and procedures for highway 
        construction and maintenance operations.
  --Accelerated implementation of promising technology and best 
        practices to improve the overall performance of the highway 
        product through increased mobility.
    The fiscal year 1999 funding provides for accelerated field 
implementation of emerging technologies coming from FHWA's traditional 
Research, Development, and Technology program areas and include: 
innovative contracting, technician certification, adoption of 
performance-related specifications, performance and serviceability 
measurement tools, and improved maintenance practices.
    The concept for the Highway Operations proposed initiatives have 
been closely coordinated with other FHWA R&T deliverables including 
products and activities planned by other research and technology groups 
to avoid duplication and ensure they are complementary. The Highway 
Operations fiscal year 1999 GOE request supports a planned program 
which will bridge the traditional gap between technology development 
and roadway performance.
    There is a planned goal in the proposed NTDI that is highway 
operations related, Reduced Delay and Improved Safety in Construction 
and Maintenance Work Areas. The distinction between the requested GOE 
funds for highway operations (and the related program) and the planned 
NTDI goal is in the focus of the respective programs. The $2 million 
requested for highway operations will be focused on research activities 
as described above. The NTDI is focused on deploying technologies. 
Through NTDI we project that new technologies, construction methods, 
and contracting practices can be applied to reduce the time required to 
complete construction and maintenance projects. Products such as model 
contract specifications to provide incentives for expedited delivery; 
improved safety hardware and practices to protect workers and prevent 
accidents; innovative detour systems; and enhanced communication with 
the traveling public to improve their driving and behavior through 
construction zones all can be deployed more aggressively to minimize 
the disruption of commercial and personal travel. In addition to 
improving work zone management, the use of new pavement materials with 
long service life will decrease the needed frequency of the work, thus 
greatly reducing overall impact on travelers and adjacent businesses.
                intelligent transportation systems (its)
    Question. The conferees stated that if the funds for specified ITS 
projects are reduced due to the levels specified in the reauthorization 
or the temporary extension of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is 
directed to fund the 41 ITS projects at the levels specified from 
deployment or R&D funds made available in the temporary extension and 
the reauthorization of the ISTEA. How do you intend to comply with this 
directive?
    Answer. Due to the uncertainty of when a multi-year reauthorization 
would be enacted, no GOE funding was made available to the ITS program 
during the extension period. The only source of ITS funds during this 
period was the $47 million of contract authority included in the 
Extension. This represents less than one-quarter of annual ITS funding 
in recent years. The ITS JPO made the decision to delay the initiation 
of all new starts, using the available resources to fund critical 
ongoing efforts. This prevented the shutdown of existing contracts, 
avoiding layoffs, dispersal of staff and the additional expenses that 
would be incurred in stopping and restarting efforts. The Department 
intends to fully fund the 41 specified ITS projects when full GOE 
funding is made available. If GOE funding is not available to fund 
these projects, we would use ITS deployment funds made available as 
part of the reauthorization.
    Question. How can you assure the Committee that each of the ITS 
projects specified in the conference report will either be fully funded 
or that funds will be set aside by the end of fiscal year 1998?
    Answer. Once we have full GOE funding or reauthorization we will 
fund all of the ITS earmarks. We will not fund the earmarks in a 
piecemeal manner, nor will we choose one of the earmarks over another. 
If we receive less than full GOE funding without reauthorization, we 
intend to prorate the funds across all earmarks. If the GOE funding is 
at such a reduced level that prorating the funds would be unworkable, 
we will return to Congress for additional guidance.
    Question. Please delineate how much you plan to spend on ITS 
awareness under the interim funding act. Please break down each of the 
contracts funded in that area. Be certain to explain why each 
publication cost was incurred and why those documents simply could not 
be made available on the Internet to download as necessary.
    Answer. Under the interim funding act, the U.S. DOT plans to spend 
$1.1 million on awareness activities. The following is the breakdown of 
expenditures under that category:
Architecture Consistency--$300,000
    Consistency with the national ITS architecture is essential for 
promoting interoperability among ITS networks regionally and 
nationally. It is among the highest priority activities of the national 
ITS Program. The DOT has been conducting outreach on its proposed 
policy for architecture consistency and will be developing documents 
that further inform the transportation community about the importance 
of architecture consistency. This item provides funding for these 
activities.
Distribute NTCIP Standards to Field--$40,000
    ITS standards, along with the national ITS architecture is 
essential for promoting interoperability among ITS networks regionally 
and nationally. This item provides funding for distribution of 
technical materials related to the National Transportation 
Communication for Intelligent Transportation Systems Protocol, the 
first set of ITS standards, to transportation professionals.
Scanning Reviews--$300,000
    Scanning reviews enable transportation practitioners to see and 
understand first hand how technologies that are being developed and 
implemented in other areas can be applied to their own regions to 
improve transportation services.
NGA Initiative--$100,000
    The Department is working with the National Governors' Association, 
to educate and inform American governors of the benefits and 
availability of Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies. This 
item covers workshops as well as production and dissemination of 
printed materials and other projects.
Shipping and Handling Exhibits--$36,000
    The Joint Program Office provides shipping and handling funds for 
all U.S. DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems-related exhibits 
throughout the country and internationally.
ITS America Annual Meeting Exhibit--$44,000
    Each year the Department of Transportation exhibits at the ITS 
America Annual Meeting Exhibit, the largest national trade show of ITS 
products. The DOT exhibit represents the current ITS program 
information, policy and technical guidance. Because of the dynamic 
nature of the program requires continuous updating and renewal.
ITS Cooperative Development Network Website--$275,000
    The ITS Cooperative Deployment Network is an Internet resource, 
under development, that will tie together the Websites from the JPO, 
ITS America, ITE and other leading national trade associations into a 
single network that can provide access to and dissemination of all 
current ITS research and information.
    To date, the ITS Joint Program Office has not provided the majority 
of its publications via the Internet because its electronic document 
library is currently under development. A partial collection, 
consisting of the most recent ITS publications, is expected to be 
available through the electronic library in the summer of 1998. The 
full collection of ITS documents will be available as of March, 1999.
    Cost savings in dissemination of ITS publications are expected when 
the electronic library is fully operational. Nevertheless, there will 
continue to be the need for hard-copy production to promote new 
products and to provide information to government and other private 
entities lacking Internet access.
    Question. Is FHWA still allocating funds for scanning tours and 
scholarships to ensure that State and local government leaders as well 
as traffic engineers and operators have a chance to visit exemplary ITS 
sites as well as to attend major ITS meetings and seminars? How much 
was allocated for those types of activities during fiscal year 1996, 
fiscal year 1997, and planned for fiscal year 1998?
    Answer. FHWA is allocating funds to the FHWA and FTA field offices 
to sponsor Scanning Reviews for State and local highway, transit, and 
planning elected and management officials to visit operational 
transportation management and traveler information centers and 
activities around the country. Furthermore, FHWA is contracting with 
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to sponsor Scanning 
Reviews for State and local highway, transit, and planning technical 
staff to visit operational transportation management and traveler 
information centers and activities around the country.

  ALLOCATION DURING FISCAL YEAR 1996, 1997 AND PLANNED FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                  1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 ITE
                                                    FHWA       Contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1996.........................................     $360,000     $116,000
1997..........................................      360,000       99,000
1998..........................................  \1\ 400,000   \1\ 80,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.

    Question. Please justify those expenses, explain their importance, 
and specify proposed funding levels for comparable activities in fiscal 
year 1999.
    Answer. Nearly $500 million has been spent on operational tests as 
part of the ITS Program. The scanning tours and scholarships maximizes 
this investment by allowing State and local government leaders, traffic 
engineers, and operators the opportunity to visit and learn from these 
ITS deployments. It represents an investment in the education and 
experience of transportation practitioners in ITS that enables them to 
see first hand how technologies are being developed and implemented in 
other parts of the United States. State and local highway, transit, and 
planning elected and management officials visit operational 
transportation management and traveler information centers and 
activities around the country and interact with their peers. It also 
afford them the opportunity for networking and learning about state of 
the art and state of the practice in ITS technology. The scanning tours 
have resulted the incorporation of ITS into transportation projects 
nationwide.
    Based on reports we have received from Scanning Review 
participants, the FHWA and FTA sponsored Scanning Review Program is 
very successful. Here are some testimonials on their success:
    Anne Watkins, Transit Department, City of Albuquerque, NM, ``I now 
have a much better understanding of the opportunities which ITS 
implementation offers to both transportation systems providers and 
travelers in New Mexico. I also gained a much broader understanding of 
the scope of planning that needs to be done for a system to be fully 
effective.''
    Captain George K. Coffman, Special Services, Arkansas Highway 
Police, ``the networking among the attending representatives is 
extremely valuable * * * I was very interested in commercial vehicle 
operation and safety. I now better understand the reasoning why the 
proponents of the intelligent transportation system concept feel there 
is a great need for implementation of ITS.''
    Daniel W. Howard, Civil Engineer with the New York State Department 
of Transportation stated, ``I networked with other ITS professionals 
and brought back to my agency ideas, information, and experiences that 
will aid the Department as we start up our new center.''
    Joseph Kott, the Transportation Planning Manager for a regional 
planning agency in Portland, Maine found the Scanning Review was 
helpful to him in his work as project manager of his region's ITS Early 
Deployment Planning project. He said, ``I learned about the 
opportunities and obstacles in ITS transit, traveler information, and 
traffic management deployments. This was a wonderful opportunity for 
both ``look and see'' as well as dialog with my peers.''
    Thomas Merritt, the Director of the Department of Public Service 
for Columbus, Ohio found the systems that are in place in San Antonio 
and Houston provided him with first-hand knowledge of these intelligent 
transportation infrastructure applications and permitted him to discuss 
implementation issues with local agencies. He also stated, ``I believe 
a great benefit was derived from the informal communications that 
occurred in the Scanning Review.''

  PROPOSED FUNDING LEVELS FOR COMPARABLE ACTIVITIES IN FISCAL YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 ITE
                                                    FHWA       Contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..........................................  \1\ $300,00  \1\ $80,000
                                                          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.

    Question. Why is it critical at this time to increase funding for 
evaluations? What is the empirical basis for the requested increase?
    Answer. As the ITS Program transitions to deployment, robust 
evaluation funding is essential to ensure thorough evaluation of the 
costs and benefits of providing ITS user services and to measure 
overall program impacts in the context of stated goals and objectives. 
For the first time, all centrally managed field evaluations of 
operational tests and model deployments are funded by the same line 
item. The increases in evaluation funding reflect implementation of the 
policy to conduct independent evaluations of all operational tests and 
model deployments in addition to increasing program assessment 
requirements. The principal emerging assessment requirements include 
the following: Tracking project activity funded by deployment 
incentives to assess outcome measures; Synthesis and analysis of data 
collected in deployment incentive projects and operational tests into 
meaningful GPRA assessment measures; Development of policy analyses and 
Congressional reporting; and Anticipated policy assessment endeavors 
resulting from linking federal funding for projects to architecture 
consistency and adherence to standards.
    Evaluation/Assessment Program emphasis will be on completing the 
metropolitan and CVISN model deployment evaluations, cross-cutting 
analyses of results from on-going operational tests and new evaluations 
of rural, highway-rail and intelligent vehicles. Specific evaluation 
funding requests include: Metropolitan Model Deployment--$800,000; 
CVISN Model Deployment--$490,000; Field Operational Tests Cross-Cutting 
Analyses--$900,000; Rural Field Operational Tests--$2,290,000; 
Intelligent Vehicle Operational Tests--$2,250,000; Intermodal Freight 
Evaluation--$150,000; APTS Field Operational Tests--$300,000; and 
Highway-Rail Field Operational Tests--$375,000.
    In the Program/Policy Assessment area, areas of emphasis include: 
ITS Deployment Tracking--$895,000; Project Tracking--$250,000; and 
Policy Assessment--$3,700,000.
    Question. As part of the ITS program, FHWA annually spends millions 
of dollars on outreach, public information, mainstreaming, and 
training. Please present documentation which substantiates that those 
expenses are still critical in light of the benefits already 
established for the ITS program.
    Answer. The focus of FHWA efforts in this area are to ensure that 
ITS technologies and services are being implemented in an integrated 
and interoperable manner, by providing: (1) technical assistance on the 
planning, procurement, and implementation of integrated ITS 
technologies; (2) guidance on the use of the National ITS architecture, 
the implementation of ITS standards, and the identification of ``best 
practices;'' and (3) the training necessary to building a skill base at 
the Federal, State and local levels. The importance of these efforts 
has been documented in several recent reports. A February 1997 GAO 
report, ``Challenges to Widespread Deployment of Intelligent 
Transportation Systems '' cited the ``lack of technical expertise and 
knowledge about ITS among those who will actually deploy the systems'' 
as a significant obstacle to the widespread deployment of integrated 
ITS. Similarly, a December 1997, Volpe Center report ``ITS Training and 
Education Needs Assessment Baseline'' provided a documented summary of 
13 studies of ITS training and education needs and field interviews in 
10 States. This report pointed to the need for increased ITS training 
and education efforts to support effective ITS deployment.
    Question. Please provide a table indicating the funding spent on 
each of those activities for each of the last three years. How much is 
planned for fiscal year 1999 for each of these areas?
    Answer. The following table depicts funding for ITS mainstreaming 
activities for fiscal years 1996 through 1999.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MAINSTREAMING ACTIVITIES--FISCAL YEAR
                                1996-1999
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year \1\--
                             -------------------------------------------
      Activity/project           1996       1997       1998       1999
                                actual     actual    estimate   estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mainstreaming:
    Commercial vehicle            2,885      1,199    ( \2\ )    ( \2\ )
     operations(CVO)........
    Advanced public transp.   .........        450    ( \2\ )    ( \2\ )
     systems (APTS).........
    Training (Professional        2,736      5,074     10,000      9,000
     Capacity Building) \3\.
    Planning/process              3,919      1,000      4,000      4,000
     guidance...............
    Deployment technical          5,733      4,587      5,000      6,500
     assistance.............
    Awareness and advocacy..  .........  .........      3,000      2,000
                             -------------------------------------------
      Grand total...........     15,273     12,310     22,000     21,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 amounts are those included in
  the Congressional Budgets for those years; they assume full funding,
  i.e., that we will eventually receive all funds requested for those
  fiscal years; final spending plans for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 will
  not be completely formulated until after final Congressional action is
  taken on appropriation acts and substantive legislation for those
  years.
\2\ No separate funding; merged into program categories below.
\3\ Fiscal year 1997 amount includes $2,002,000 of training funding
  charged to Operational Tests per Congressional direction.

    Question. What ITS monies are being used to further the 
productivity of the intermodal freight industry?
    Answer. No ITS monies are being used to further the productivity of 
the intermodal freight industry alone. U.S. DOT plans to identify 
critical intermodal freight movement problems and bottlenecks and apply 
ITS technology solutions to those problem areas in partnership with the 
freight industry. The critical federal role is developing congestion 
mitigation strategies that can be applied throughout the nation on 
major transportation corridors, and developing strategies that will 
facilitate the safe movement of the traveling public along those 
corridors.
    The intermodal freight industry has indicated an interest in 
coordinating development efforts with DOT on electronic data 
interchange and on technology standardization, and on resolving access 
issues to the ports. Major evidence for this interest in DOT's 
assistance is the workshop that was held in Baltimore in November 1995. 
Also, the establishment of a national freight partnership to assist in 
the development of DOT initiatives and to stimulate feedback from the 
rest of the freight industry has been a critical step in the process. 
This partnership has provided valuable input to the Trade Corridor and 
Border Gateway Pilot Planning initiative in the proposed 
reauthorization of ISTEA. Further evidence is the interest given in the 
development of a workshop planned for June, 1998 to address some of the 
issues related to intermodal freight identification, and to help 
identify the role that DOT and DOD may need to play in coordinating an 
intermodal freight transportation architecture.
    Question. Why is that investment considered a critical funding need 
that could not be delayed given the limitation of the interim 
authorization?
    Answer. Rapid growth of congestion in urban areas, including major 
ports of entry, is a nationwide problem that reduces transportation 
efficiency and market competitiveness. Loss of transportation system 
reliability due to congestion hampers the ability of American business 
and industry to take advantage of manufacturing and distribution 
logistics that rely on just-in-time performance. The private sector 
freight transportation industry has been applying information 
management and communication technologies to integrate freight 
transportation and provide shippers and receivers with a seamless 
freight transportation system. Working with the private sector, the 
public sector can enhance economic performance and ensure national 
security by reducing delay at ports of entry, intermodal terminals, and 
on the national highway system.
    Minimal ITS funds, $150,000, have been allocated from the fiscal 
year 1998 funds available from the ISTEA Extension, to ensure that 
proper strategic and program planning was conducted prior to initiation 
of the intermodal test deployments proposed for fiscal year 1999. A 
team has been established in USDOT, consisting of representatives of 
all modes to address issues that will help seek intermodal solutions. 
The urgency of the activity was related to preparing an effective 
agenda for fiscal year 1999 requested funds. The intention of the 
fiscal year 1999 efforts are to take advantage of ITS lessons learned 
and leverage appropriate existing ITS projects to examine solutions to 
congestion related to intermodal movements in corridors of significance 
to international trade and national defense.
    For example, the State of Washington and the Province of British 
Columbia are cooperating on a project to streamline the movement of 
freight across the Blaine border crossing. In addition, they also plan 
to test the viability of using dedicated short range communication 
devices to facilitate the movement of freight from the Port of Seattle 
through the border crossing. The DOT is working with the two 
jurisdictions on the test, and is currently sponsoring the development 
of standards for DSRC. As such, it is critical for DOT to work with the 
freight industry, the DSRC manufacturing industry and other users to 
work toward harmonizing standards and eliminating interference.
    Question. How much are you now spending on this objective? How much 
is proposed in fiscal year 1998? (Assume full authorization of fiscal 
year 1998 appropriated funds.) In fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1996 the DOT allocated $250,000 to a study 
conducted by the Volpe Center titled, ``Intelligent Transportation 
Systems and Intermodal Freight Transportation.'' This study provided a 
foundation for additional work to conduct proper and strategic program 
planning prior to initiation of the intermodal test planned for fiscal 
year 1999. The program planning work is estimated to cost approximately 
$300,000. Under the ISTEA Extension, $150,000 has been allocated to the 
fiscal year 1998 effort. The fiscal year 1999 funding of $1 million is 
requested to be applied to the deployment of two ITS intermodal test 
projects. The projects will be in corridors of significance to 
international trade and the national defense. DOT also plans for the 
tests to cross at least two state lines, involve at least one 
international port of entry, and involve one or more MPO's.
    Question. Please present for the record a breakdown of how you have 
allocated the ITS interim funds.
    Answer. The following table shows how the $47 million of interim 
ITS funds for fiscal year 1998 have been allocated.

   INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS--FISCAL YEAR 1998 SPENDING PLAN
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year 1998 budget
             Programs             --------------------------------------
                                       GOE      Cont. auth.     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL.  ...........        2,650        2,650
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH.  ...........        7,750        7,750
    ENABLING.....................  ...........          848          848
    RURAL RESEARCH...............  ...........          630          630
    HIGH RISK RESEARCH...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    OTHER RESEARCH...............  ...........          500          500
    ADVANCED TRANSIT MGMT.         ...........  ...........  ...........
     RESEARCH....................
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS  ...........        6,150        6,150
    HWY.-RAIL INTERSECT INNOV      ...........  ...........  ...........
     DEV. RESEARCH...............
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH..  ...........          150          150
                                  --------------------------------------
      TOTAL......................  ...........       18,678       18,678
                                  ======================================
OPERATIONAL TESTS:
    APTS.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........
    CVO (Safety Test @ Two Border  ...........          500          500
     Crossings)..................
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE..........  ...........        2,500        2,500
    RURAL........................  ...........        1,100        1,100
    ALERT Vehicle Deployment \1\.  ...........          150          150
                                  --------------------------------------
      TOTAL......................  ...........        4,250        4,250
                                  ======================================
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT:
    ITS Field Evaluations........  ...........        1,900        1,900
    ITS Program Assessment.......  ...........          975          975
                                  --------------------------------------
      TOTAL......................  ...........        2,875        2,875
                                  ======================================
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS:
    ARCHITECTURE.................  ...........        2,467        2,467
    STANDARDS....................  ...........        5,373        5,373
                                  --------------------------------------
      TOTAL......................  ...........        7,840        7,840
                                  ======================================
MAINSTREAMING:
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.........  ...........        2,150        2,150
    PLANNING/POLICY..............  ...........           20           20
    TRAINING.....................  ...........        2,580        2,580
    AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY.......  ...........        1,095        1,095
                                  --------------------------------------
      TOTAL......................  ...........        5,845        5,845
                                  ======================================
CORRIDORS........................  ...........  ...........  ...........
PROGRAM SUPPORT..................  ...........        4,971        4,971
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM  ...........        1,000        1,000
CONTINGENCIES....................  ...........        1,541        1,541
                                  ======================================
      GRAND TOTAL................  ...........       47,000       47,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please submit for the record a detailed breakout of how 
the fiscal year 1997 funds for model deployment were allocated. Specify 
the amount and nature of any supporting contracts. Provide similar 
breakouts for fiscal year 1998 monies, assuming full authorization of 
contract and appropriated funds.
    Answer. The following information.
Metropolitan:
    Fiscal year 1997 funds were allocated to the four metropolitan 
Model Deployment sites as follows: Seattle--$9,088,000; Phoenix--
$2,920,000; San Antonio--$2,544,000; and New York/New Jersey/
Connecticut metropolitan area--$6,010,000, which included $250,000 from 
the I-95 Corridor Coalition.
    It is important to note that the metropolitan Model Deployment 
projects are true public/private partnerships, with the project 
partners providing at least 50 percent of the total project costs. 
Therefore, the Federal ITS funding above represents only a portion of 
the overall value of the total program.
    A total of $1,481,814 was used in fiscal year 1997 to support the 
four selected metropolitan Model Deployment sites and to encourage the 
non-selected sites to continue their ITS deployment plans. This 
included regular workshops to facilitate information exchange among the 
Model Deployment sites and to provide a forum for addressing 
crosscutting issues. The funding also provided technical assistance on 
the national ITS architecture, systems engineering, and other issues 
relevant to both the selected and non-selected Model Deployment 
partnerships. The funding was allocated as follows: Model Deployment 
Quarterly Workshops--$105,000; National Architecture Early 
Implementation Support--$600,000; Technical/Systems Engineering 
Support--$426,814; Showcasing/Lessons Learned--$250,000; and Program 
Management Software, Internet Site Support--$100,000.
    Evaluation of the Model Deployment effort is essential to obtain 
valuable information to support the national ITS program and allow the 
public and private sectors to make informed deployment decisions. To 
avoid conflict of interest created by having a participant evaluate its 
own project, two ITS Program Assessment support contracts were awarded, 
in part, to evaluate the benefits of the metropolitan Model Deployment 
sites. fiscal year 1997 funds allocated for this evaluation effort 
totals $3,300,000.
    The only fiscal year 1998 funding for the model deployment effort 
will be $750,000 allocated to fully fund the evaluation effort.
Commercial Vehicle Operations:
    Fiscal year 1997 funds were allocated to the eight CVISN Model 
Deployment sites as follows: California--$500,000; Colorado--$500,000; 
Connecticut--$500,000; Kentucky--$500,000; Michigan--$0 \1\; 
Minnesota--$500,000; Oregon--$500,000; and Washington--shared with 
Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Michigan did not complete the requirements for additional 
funding, but expects to continue participation as funds become 
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FHWA planned to use model deployment incentive funds for fiscal 
year 1998 to complete the funding for the CVISN model deployment 
states. The cost estimate for states to complete CVISN level one model 
deployment is $6-$8 million. One million dollars of federal funds has 
already been allocated to the model deployment states. With a 50-50 
share between states and the federal government, the current investment 
is $2 million. The remaining federal allocation is $2-$3 million per 
State to complete CVISN level in the model deployment states.
    Question. Please submit a copy of the ITS spending plan for fiscal 
year 1998 assuming full authorization of contract and appropriated 
funds and proposed for fiscal year 1999. Also please submit a 
comparable final ITS spending allocation for fiscal year 1997. Please 
be certain that the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1997 spending 
plans are in a form identical to that provided on pages 215-221 of your 
fiscal year 1999 budget submittal.
    Answer. The following tables displays the ITS spending plans for 
fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.

                                       INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FISCAL YEAR 1997 SPENDING PLAN (ACTUAL)
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Fiscal year 1998 budget
                   ACTIVITY/PROJECT                       CVO        FHWA      NHTSA       FTA        FRA       TOTAL   --------------------------------
                                                                                                                            GOE       ISTEA      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.............................      6,891     22,458      8,100        475  .........     31,033     26,393      4,640     31,033
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & SOFTWARE TOOLS..............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS....................      6,891      6,891  .........  .........  .........      6,891      6,891  .........      6,891
    CRASH AVOIDANCE RESEARCH.........................  .........  .........      7,500  .........  .........      7,500      7,500  .........      7,500
    ENABLING RESEARCH................................  .........      4,044        600        175  .........      4,819      4,779         40      4,819
    HIGH RISK RESEARCH...............................  .........      4,300  .........  .........  .........      4,300  .........      4,300      4,300
    ADVANCED FLEET MGMT. RESEARCH....................  .........  .........  .........        300  .........        300        300  .........        300
    OTHER R&D........................................  .........      5,813  .........  .........  .........      5,813      5,813  .........      5,813
    PROGRAM ASSESSMENT...............................  .........      1,410  .........  .........  .........      1,410      1,110        300      1,410
AUTOMATED HIGHWAY SYSTEM.............................  .........     22,000  .........  .........  .........     22,000     22,000  .........     22,000
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS...........................  .........     12,803  .........  .........  .........     12,803      5,000      7,803     12,803
    ARCHITECTURE.....................................  .........      2,629  .........  .........  .........      2,629  .........      2,629      2,629
    STANDARDS........................................  .........     10,174  .........  .........  .........     10,174      5,000      5,174     10,174
OPERATIONAL TESTS....................................     14,483     53,797      3,050      1,950  .........     58,797     56,447      2,350     58,797
    ATMS/ATIS........................................  .........     11,637  .........        600  .........     12,237     12,237  .........     12,237
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS (CVO)..............     13,483     13,483  .........  .........  .........     13,483     12,483      1,000     13,483
    AVCSS............................................  .........  .........      3,050  .........  .........      3,050      3,050  .........      3,050
    APTS.............................................  .........  .........  .........      1,350  .........      1,350  .........      1,350      1,350
    MODEL DEPLOYMENT (INCL. IN ATMS/ATIS IN BUDGET)..  .........     26,675  .........  .........  .........     26,675     26,675  .........     26,675
    TRAINING ACTIVITIES..............................      1,000      2,002  .........  .........  .........      2,002      2,002  .........      2,002
EVALUATION...........................................  .........      2,039  .........        100  .........      2,139      1,999        140      2,139
MAINSTREAMING........................................      1,199      9,558  .........        750  .........     10,308        193     10,115     10,308
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS (CVO)..............      1,199      1,199  .........  .........  .........      1,199        193      1,006      1,199
    ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSP. SYSTEMS (APTS)...........  .........  .........  .........        450  .........        450  .........        450        450
    TRAINING (Professional Capacity Building)........  .........      2,772  .........        300  .........      3,072  .........      3,072      3,072
    PLANNING/PROCESS GUIDANCE........................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
    DEPLOYMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE..................  .........      4,587  .........  .........  .........      4,587  .........      4,587      4,587
CORRIDORS PROGRAM....................................     11,500     71,700  .........  .........  .........     71,700  .........     71,700     71,700
PROGRAM SUPPORT......................................  .........      9,461  .........        200  .........      9,661      8,326      1,335      9,661
NAT'L. ADV. DRIVER SIMULATOR (NADS)..................  .........  .........     14,000  .........  .........     14,000  .........     14,000     14,000
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL....................................     34,073    203,816     25,150      3,475  .........    232,441    120,358    112,083    232,441
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.............................      6,891     22,458      8,100        475  .........     31,033     26,393      4,640     31,033
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & SOFTWARE TOOLS..............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Real-Time Traffic Mgmt. & Control............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            RT-TRACS 2.0.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            Ramp Metering............................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            Surface Street Incident Detection........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Support Systems..............................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            Research & Anal. for ATMS (Oak Ridge)....  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            Traffic Mgmt. Lab (TML)..................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    CVO..............................................      6,891      6,891  .........  .........  .........      6,891      6,891  .........      6,891
        Safer MCSAP Sites............................      5,100      5,100  .........  .........  .........      5,100      5,100  .........      5,100
            System Develop. & Enhancement............      1,890      1,890  .........  .........  .........      1,890      1,890  .........      1,890
            Field Deployment.........................      1,610      1,610  .........  .........  .........      1,610      1,610  .........      1,610
            System Operation and Support.............      1,600      1,600  .........  .........  .........      1,600      1,600  .........      1,600
        Driver Monitoring (with NHTSA)...............         90         90  .........  .........  .........         90         90  .........         90
        Industry Research (NPTC, ATA, etc.)..........        120        120  .........  .........  .........        120        120  .........        120
        On-Board Safety Diagnostics..................        686        686  .........  .........  .........        686        686  .........        686
            Auto Roadside Inspec. (Imaging)..........        135        135  .........  .........  .........        135        135  .........        135
            Electronic Brake (with NHTSA)............        150        150  .........  .........  .........        150        150  .........        150
            Brake Performance Specifications.........        401        401  .........  .........  .........        401        401  .........        401
            Black Box (Data Recorder)................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Automated Compliance Review Program (Volpe)..        500        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
        State Research (Baxter Replacement)..........        245        245  .........  .........  .........        245        245  .........        245
        Dedicated Short Range Comm. (DSRC) (Booz-            150        150  .........  .........  .........        150        150  .........        150
         Allen)......................................
    CRASH AVOIDANCE RESEARCH.........................  .........  .........      7,500  .........  .........      7,500      7,500  .........      7,500
        Research Tools and Knowledge Base............  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
            Application of Vehicle Motion Env. (VME).  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100        100  .........        100
            Application of DASCAR....................  .........  .........        250  .........  .........        250        250  .........        250
            Human Factors Research...................  .........  .........        150  .........  .........        150        150  .........        150
            SAVME and FOCAS Extensions...............  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
        Performance Specifications...................  .........  .........      3,450  .........  .........      3,450      3,450  .........      3,450
            Rear-end Collision Avoidance Systems.....  .........  .........      1,500  .........  .........      1,500      1,500  .........      1,500
            Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems.  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
            Lane Change and Merge Systems............  .........  .........        450  .........  .........        450        450  .........        450
            Roadway Departure Systems................  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
            Drowsy Driver Detection Sys. & Prototype   .........  .........        400  .........  .........        400        400  .........        400
             Eval....................................
            Vision Enhancement.......................  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100        100  .........        100
        Facilitate Commercial Development............  .........  .........        680  .........  .........        680        680  .........        680
            Intelligent Cruise Control (ICC).........  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300        300  .........        300
            Auto. Collision Notification Evaluation    .........  .........        380  .........  .........        380        380  .........        380
             (ACN)...................................
        Miscellaneous Support........................  .........  .........      2,370  .........  .........      2,370      2,370  .........      2,370
            NHTSA Administrative Support.............  .........  .........        600  .........  .........        600        600  .........        600
            Cooperative Agreements...................  .........  .........      1,770  .........  .........      1,770      1,770  .........      1,770
                CAMP (Ford/GM Metrics Performance      .........  .........      1,250  .........  .........      1,250      1,250  .........      1,250
                 Study...............................
                IR Vision Enh. (Texas Inst./US Army/   .........  .........        270  .........  .........        270        270  .........        270
                 Scientex)...........................
                Heavy Vehicle Intelligent Dynamic      .........  .........        150  .........  .........        150        150  .........        150
                 Stability...........................
                Commercial Veh. Commun. & Power Enhan  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100        100  .........        100
    ENABLING RESEARCH................................  .........      4,044        600        175  .........      4,819      4,779         40      4,819
        Augmentation of Global Positioning Sys. (GPS)  .........        566  .........  .........  .........        566        566  .........        566
        Telecommunications...........................  .........        200  .........  .........  .........        200        200  .........        200
        Human Factors Support........................  .........      3,238        600        175  .........      4,013      4,013  .........      4,013
            In-vehicle Display Icons.................  .........        275  .........  .........  .........        275        275  .........        275
            IVIS Behavioral Model & Design Support     .........        400  .........  .........  .........        400        400  .........        400
             Sys.....................................
            Technical & Administrative Services        .........        925  .........  .........  .........        925        925  .........        925
             (SAIC)..................................
            ATIS/CVO Design Evolution................  .........        200  .........  .........  .........        200        200  .........        200
            Tech. Support for IVIS Development (ORNL)  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
            TMC Computer-aided Design Support System.  .........        400  .........  .........  .........        400        400  .........        400
            FTA Traveller Information Effectiveness..  .........  .........  .........        175  .........        175        175  .........        175
            ATMS Human Factors Study (Georgia Tech)..  .........        244  .........  .........  .........        244        244  .........        244
            Safety Workload Assessment...............  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300        300  .........        300
            ITS In-Vehicle Device Integration for CAS  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100        100  .........        100
            Long Term Effects of ITS on Driver         .........  .........        200  .........  .........        200        200  .........        200
             Behavior................................
            Prel. Human Factors Review of IVI........  .........        294  .........  .........  .........        294        294  .........        294
        Track FCC Petition for 5.8 GHZ Spectrum        .........         40  .........  .........  .........         40  .........         40         40
         Alloc. (ITSA)...............................
        Coord. Supp. of DOT Navig. & Positioning       .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
         Prog. (OST).................................
    HIGH RISK RESEARCH...............................  .........      4,300  .........  .........  .........      4,300  .........      4,300      4,300
        IDEA.........................................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
        Research Centers of Excellence...............  .........      1,700  .........  .........  .........      1,700  .........      1,700      1,700
        Texas Transportation Institute (1997 Earmark)  .........        600  .........  .........  .........        600  .........        600        600
        Adv. Trans. Weather Sys.-Univ. N Dakota (1997  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
         Earmark)....................................
        University of North Dakota (1996 Cong.         .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
         Earmark)....................................
    ADVANCED FLEET MGMT. RESEARCH (APTS).............  .........  .........  .........        300  .........        300        300  .........        300
    OTHER R&D........................................  .........      5,813  .........  .........  .........      5,813      5,813  .........      5,813
        Research Centers of Excellence...............  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
        TFHRC Support/Overhead.......................  .........      3,403  .........  .........  .........      3,403      3,403  .........      3,403
            TRB Correlation Service..................  .........      1,077  .........  .........  .........      1,077      1,077  .........      1,077
            Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)  .........      1,821  .........  .........  .........      1,821      1,821  .........      1,821
            RD&T Report Center Support Services......  .........        131  .........  .........  .........        131        131  .........        131
            Editorial Support Services...............  .........        374  .........  .........  .........        374        374  .........        374
            Pan American Hwy. Study..................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            Audit Costs..............................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Electronics Laboratory.......................  .........        191  .........  .........  .........        191        191  .........        191
        ADP Support Services (In Support/Overhead in   .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
         1996........................................
        Develop ITS Planning Models (ORNL) (See        .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
         IV.A.1.b.(7))...............................
        Rural Res.-Toolbox Devel./Mgmt.(Move $200K to  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
         I.D.3.h)....................................
        Other (Internet Access, report distribution,   .........        719  .........  .........  .........        719        719  .........        719
         logistics, etc.)............................
    PROGRAM ASSESSMENT...............................  .........      1,410  .........  .........  .........      1,410      1,110        300      1,410
        Evaluation Support for Oper. Tests (Booz-      .........        687  .........  .........  .........        687        687  .........        687
         Allen)......................................
        Evaluation Support for Operational Tests       .........        413  .........  .........  .........        413        413  .........        413
         (Booz-Allen)................................
        Unobligated Carryover........................  .........         10  .........  .........  .........         10         10  .........         10
        Program Assessment of AHS....................  .........        300  .........  .........  .........        300  .........        300        300
        ITS Program Assessment (Volpe) ($400K).......  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
AUTOMATED HIGHWAY SYSTEM.............................  .........     22,000  .........  .........  .........     22,000     22,000  .........     22,000
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS...........................  .........     12,803  .........  .........  .........     12,803      5,000      7,803     12,803
    ARCHITECTURE.....................................  .........      2,629  .........  .........  .........      2,629  .........      2,629      2,629
        Deployment/Implementation Support............  .........        129  .........  .........  .........        129  .........        129        129
        Architecture Maintenance.....................  .........      2,500  .........  .........  .........      2,500  .........      2,500      2,500
    STANDARDS........................................  .........     10,174  .........  .........  .........     10,174      5,000      5,174     10,174
        Spatial Data Transfer Standard...............  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
        National Transp. Communications ITS Protocol   .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
         (NTCIP).....................................
        CVO Standards................................  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
        Traffic Mgmt. System Support Standards.......  .........        800  .........  .........  .........        800        800  .........        800
        Transit Mgmt. Standards Support (APTS).......  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Standards Development Organizations..........  .........      3,799  .........  .........  .........      3,799      1,700      2,099      3,799
        Standards Support (JPL)......................  .........      2,300  .........  .........  .........      2,300  .........      2,300      2,300
        Dedicated Short Range Communications.........  .........        510  .........  .........  .........        510  .........        510        510
        Architectural Support of Standards...........  .........        265  .........  .........  .........        265  .........        265        265
OPERATIONAL TESTS....................................     14,483     53,797      3,050      1,950  .........     58,797     56,447      2,350     58,797
    ATMS/ATIS........................................  .........     11,637  .........        600  .........     12,237     12,237  .........     12,237
        Real-time Traffic Adaptive Control (1997       .........     10,000  .........  .........  .........     10,000     10,000  .........     10,000
         Earmark)....................................
            Operational Tests........................  .........      6,000  .........  .........  .........      6,000      6,000  .........      6,000
                RT-TRACS Testing I (Reston Pkwy.)      .........      2,050  .........  .........  .........      2,050      2,050  .........      2,050
                 (Kaman).............................
                RT-TRACS Testing II (Site B).........  .........        675  .........  .........  .........        675        675  .........        675
                RT-TRACS Testing III (Site C)........  .........      1,750  .........  .........  .........      1,750      1,750  .........      1,750
                RT-TRACS Testing IV (Site D).........  .........      1,525  .........  .........  .........      1,525      1,525  .........      1,525
            Other (R&D)..............................  .........      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000      4,000  .........      4,000
                Deployment Issues of Surveillance Sys  .........        250  .........  .........  .........        250        250  .........        250
                Ramp Metering........................  .........        750  .........  .........  .........        750        750  .........        750
                Development of RT TRACS..............  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
                ATMS Research Tools Database System..  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
                Traffic Mgmt. Lab. Support...........  .........        750  .........  .........  .........        750        750  .........        750
                Support Services.....................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
                Devel. of ITS Planning Models (See     .........        250  .........  .........  .........        250        250  .........        250
                 I.G.5.).............................
        Rural Program Activities.....................  .........      1,637  .........        600  .........      2,237      2,237  .........      2,237
            Strategic Plan Coordination Workshops....  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            Toolbox Devel. & Mgmt. (See Other R&D)...  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            Regional Applications of APTS Technology.  .........  .........  .........        600  .........        600        600  .........        600
                Sweetwater, Wyoming..................  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200        200  .........        200
                Florida Panhandle....................  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200        200  .........        200
                Cape Cod, Massachusetts..............  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200        200  .........        200
            Tourism and Advanced Traveler Info.        .........        850  .........  .........  .........        850        850  .........        850
             Systems FOT.............................
            Road Weather Information System..........  .........        700  .........  .........  .........        700        700  .........        700
            Misc. Rural Projects.....................  .........         87  .........  .........  .........         87         87  .........         87
                ITSA ARTS Conference.................  .........         30  .........  .........  .........         30         30  .........         30
                Weather Video........................  .........          7  .........  .........  .........          7          7  .........          7
                ARTS Program Coordination Workshops..  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                Virginia AVL for Snow Plows..........  .........         50  .........  .........  .........         50         50  .........         50
    CVO..............................................     13,483     13,483  .........  .........  .........     13,483     12,483      1,000     13,483
        CVISN & Prototype Testing (1997 Earmark).....      9,218      9,218  .........  .........  .........      9,218      9,218  .........      9,218
            Prototypes and Pilots....................      4,000      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000      4,000  .........      4,000
            Technical Support........................      5,218      5,218  .........  .........  .........      5,218      5,218  .........      5,218
        Border Crossings.............................      3,150      3,150  .........  .........  .........      3,150      3,150  .........      3,150
            Texas Border Deployment..................      2,500      2,500  .........  .........  .........      2,500      2,500  .........      2,500
            Texas Border Technical Assistance                650        650  .........  .........  .........        650        650  .........        650
             ($350=BAH)..............................
        CVO Corridors (Advantage I-75)...............      1,000      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
        One Stop Shopping............................        115        115  .........  .........  .........        115        115  .........        115
        Safer Mailbox (Delaware).....................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    AVCSS (Adv. Veh. Control Sys.) (1997 Earmark = $3  .........  .........      3,050  .........  .........      3,050      3,050  .........      3,050
     M)..............................................
        ICC Operational Field Test...................  .........  .........        822  .........  .........        822        822  .........        822
        Auto. Collision Notification (ACN) Oper.       .........  .........         23  .........  .........         23         23  .........         23
         Field Test..................................
        Rear-end Crash Avoidance Systems.............  .........  .........      1,155  .........  .........      1,155      1,155  .........      1,155
        ICC Heavy Vehicles...........................  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
        Crash Avoidance Op. Test Exhibit @ AHS Demo..  .........  .........         50  .........  .........         50         50  .........         50
    APTS.............................................  .........  .........  .........      1,350  .........      1,350  .........      1,350      1,350
        Next Generation Kiosk & Visitor Transit        .........  .........  .........        700  .........        700  .........        700        700
         Information.................................
        Advanced Fare Media..........................  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200  .........        200        200
        Advanced Fleet Mgmt. System..................  .........  .........  .........        450  .........        450  .........        450        450
    MODEL DEPLOY. (Integration of ITI Tech.) 1997      .........     26,675  .........  .........  .........     26,675     26,675  .........     26,675
     Earmark.........................................
        Metropolitan Areas...........................  .........     22,488  .........  .........  .........     22,488     22,488  .........     22,488
            Model Deployments........................  .........     20,645  .........  .........  .........     20,645     20,645  .........     20,645
                Phoenix..............................  .........      2,920  .........  .........  .........      2,920      2,920  .........      2,920
                San Antonio..........................  .........      2,544  .........  .........  .........      2,544      2,544  .........      2,544
                Seattle..............................  .........      9,088  .........  .........  .........      9,088      9,088  .........      9,088
                New York/New Jersey/Connecticut......  .........      5,760  .........  .........  .........      5,760      5,760  .........      5,760
                Other................................  .........        333  .........  .........  .........        333        333  .........        333
            Model Deployment Program Management......  .........      1,843  .........  .........  .........      1,843      1,843  .........      1,843
                MDI Quarterly Workshops..............  .........        106  .........  .........  .........        106        106  .........        106
                Nat'l. Architecture Early              .........        600  .........  .........  .........        600        600  .........        600
                 Implementation Effort...............
                Debriefing Packages (Deployment Asst.  .........        126  .........  .........  .........        126        126  .........        126
                 Work-  shops........................
                Technical/Systems Engineering Support  .........        416  .........  .........  .........        416        416  .........        416
                WWW Site Support.....................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                Program Mgmt. Software...............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                Public Sector Nat'l. Arch. Seminar     .........        595  .........  .........  .........        595        595  .........        595
                 (Devel. & Deliver)..................
        Evaluations..................................  .........      4,187  .........  .........  .........      4,187      4,187  .........      4,187
            ITI Model Deployment Evaluations (4        .........      2,564  .........  .........  .........      2,564      2,564  .........      2,564
             sites)..................................
            CVISN Evaluation (7 sites)...............  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
            Evaluation Support for Oper. Tests (Booz-  .........        623  .........  .........  .........        623        623  .........        623
             Allen)..................................
            Other....................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        CVISN (See CVO Op. Tests above)..............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        ITI & CVO Training (See Training Activities    .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
         below)......................................
        Lessons Learned--Atlanta (Booz-Allen)........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    TRAINING ACTIVITIES..............................      1,000      2,002  .........  .........  .........      2,002      2,002  .........      2,002
        ITI Training.................................  .........      1,002  .........  .........  .........      1,002      1,002  .........      1,002
            Traf. Opr. Curr & Certification Devel.     .........        200  .........  .........  .........        200        200  .........        200
             Support.................................
            Printing--Seminar & Course Support         .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
             Materials...............................
            Refinements/Enhanc. to Seminars/New        .........        802  .........  .........  .........        802        802  .........        802
             Courses.................................
        CVO Training.................................      1,000      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
EVALUATION...........................................  .........      2,039  .........        100  .........      2,139      1,999        140      2,139
    NCTI Showcase Evaluation (IPAS)..................  .........        150  .........  .........  .........        150        150  .........        150
    ITI Deployment Tracking (ORNL)...................  .........        350  .........  .........  .........        350        350  .........        350
    PCB Tracking (Volpe).............................  .........         50  .........  .........  .........         50         50  .........         50
    CVISN Tracking (Volpe)...........................  .........         10  .........  .........  .........         10         10  .........         10
    Standards Tracking (Volpe).......................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Benefits Analysis (IPAS).........................  .........        425  .........  .........  .........        425        385         40        425
    Cost Analysis (IPAS).............................  .........        480  .........  .........  .........        480        480  .........        480
    Policy Analysis (IPAS)...........................  .........        574  .........  .........  .........        574        574  .........        574
    FTA Admin. Support/Evaluation (Volpe)............  .........  .........  .........        100  .........        100  .........        100        100
    Operational Test Evaluations ($450K).............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
MAINSTREAMING........................................      1,199      9,558  .........        750  .........     10,308        193     10,115     10,308
    CVO..............................................      1,199      1,199  .........  .........  .........      1,199        193      1,006      1,199
        CVO Outreach.................................        106        106  .........  .........  .........        106  .........        106        106
        CVO Training (See Training under Operational   .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
         Tests)......................................
        CVO Deployment Technical Asst. (Regional           1,093      1,093  .........  .........  .........      1,093        193        900      1,093
         Champs).....................................
        State, Reg. and Nat'l. Forums/Activities.....  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    APTS.............................................  .........  .........  .........        450  .........        450  .........        450        450
    TRAINING (Professional Capacity Building (PCB))..  .........      2,772  .........        300  .........      3,072  .........      3,072      3,072
        Nat'l. ITS Training Initiative...............  .........      2,712  .........  .........  .........      2,712  .........      2,712      2,712
            PCB Awareness Seminars--Delivery to Field  .........      1,557  .........  .........  .........      1,557  .........      1,557      1,557
            Scanning Reviews.........................  .........        375  .........  .........  .........        375  .........        375        375
            PCB External Steering Committee Support..  .........        125  .........  .........  .........        125  .........        125        125
            On-site (PCB) Tech. & Clerical Support...  .........        255  .........  .........  .........        255  .........        255        255
            Tours & Scholarships (ITE)...............  .........        150  .........  .........  .........        150  .........        150        150
            Support for ITI Seminars at Nat'l. Assoc.  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
             Conf....................................
            PCB Program Update.......................  .........        250  .........  .........  .........        250  .........        250        250
            Present New ITS Short Courses............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        FTA Training Initiative......................  .........  .........  .........        300  .........        300  .........        300        300
            Develop Transit Mgmt. Overview Course....  .........  .........  .........        100  .........        100  .........        100        100
            PCB Program Support......................  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200  .........        200        200
        Telecommunications Workshops (Apogee)........  .........         60  .........  .........  .........         60  .........         60         60
    PLANNING/PROCESS GUIDANCE........................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
        Planning for Managing Non-Recurring            .........        150  .........  .........  .........        150  .........        150        150
         Congestion..................................
        ITS-Based Performance Monitoring for Decision- .........        385  .........  .........  .........        385  .........        385        385
         Support.....................................
        Congestion Mgmt./Freight Movement/Intermodal   .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
         Connec-  tions..............................
        Regional Coord. of Systems Operations........  .........        200  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200        200
        Tech. Transfer & Outreach on Strategies for    .........        265  .........  .........  .........        265  .........        265        265
         Cong. Mgmt..................................
        Pennsylvania EDPS (Harrisburg/Allentown).....  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        California EDPS (Fresno).....................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Charleston, SC EDPS..........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    DEPLOYMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE..................  .........      4,587  .........  .........  .........      4,587  .........      4,587      4,587
        ITI Technical Assistance.....................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
            Peer-to-Peer Tech. Asst. Program.........  .........        300  .........  .........  .........        300  .........        300        300
            ITE Tech. Info. Clearinghouse............  .........         32  .........  .........  .........         32  .........         32         32
            ITE Report ``Toolbox for Allev. Traf.      .........         68  .........  .........  .........         68  .........         68         68
             Cong.''.................................
            Service Plans (formerly Tech. Repts        .........        100  .........  .........  .........        100  .........        100        100
             Database)...............................
            Local Gov't. Technical Assistance (PTI)..  .........        175  .........  .........  .........        175  .........        175        175
            Quick Response Supp. for Prog.             .........        200  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200        200
             Development.............................
            Garrett A. Morgan Room Support...........  .........        125  .........  .........  .........        125  .........        125        125
        ITI Outreach.................................  .........      1,114  .........  .........  .........      1,114  .........      1,114      1,114
            Shipping & Handling (thru OTA Contract)..  .........        200  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200        200
            Exhibits.................................  .........        208  .........  .........  .........        208  .........        208        208
            World Wide Web...........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            Reprinting Materials.....................  .........        556  .........  .........  .........        556  .........        556        556
            Duplicating Multi-media Presentations....  .........        150  .........  .........  .........        150  .........        150        150
            Annual Report, etc. (Volpe)..............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        CVO Outreach (Under A above).................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        ITS Consortium...............................  .........        346  .........  .........  .........        346  .........        346        346
        ITI Technical Guidance.......................  .........      1,373  .........  .........  .........      1,373  .........      1,373      1,373
            ITI Implementation Guidance Documentation  .........      1,348  .........  .........  .........      1,348  .........      1,348      1,348
                Transit Management Guidance Document.  .........        200  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200        200
                Freeway Management Guidance Document.  .........        244  .........  .........  .........        244  .........        244        244
                Incident Management Guidance Document  .........        244  .........  .........  .........        244  .........        244        244
                Traffic Signal Control Guidance        .........        242  .........  .........  .........        242  .........        242        242
                 Document............................
                Traveler Information Guidance          .........        242  .........  .........  .........        242  .........        242        242
                 Document............................
                Software Procurement.................  .........        176  .........  .........  .........        176  .........        176        176
                TMC Guidance Document................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
            R&D Field Guidance Documentation.........  .........         25  .........  .........  .........         25  .........         25         25
            Procurement Guidance Documentation.......  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Electronic Clearinghouse System..............  .........        754  .........  .........  .........        754  .........        754        754
        Develop Regional Plans for ATIS (ITSA/WASH.    .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
         STATE)......................................
        ITS Deployment Partnership Network (IDPN)      .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
         (ITE).......................................
CORRIDORS PROGRAM....................................     11,500     71,700  .........  .........  .........     71,700  .........     71,700     71,700
    Priority Corridors...............................      1,000     44,600  .........  .........  .........     44,600  .........     44,600     44,600
        I-95 Northeast Corridor......................      1,000     23,920  .........  .........  .........     23,920  .........     23,920     23,920
            Nat'l. Transp. Center, Oakdale, NY (1997   .........      2,500  .........  .........  .........      2,500  .........      2,500      2,500
             Earmark)................................
            Operation Respond Maryland (1997 Earmark)      1,000      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
            Pennsylvania Turnpike (1997 Earmark).....  .........      3,000  .........  .........  .........      3,000  .........      3,000      3,000
            Nat'l. Capital Region Cong. Mitigation     .........      3,500  .........  .........  .........      3,500  .........      3,500      3,500
             (1997 Ear-  mark).......................
            TRANSCOM, New York/New Jersey (1997        .........      2,250  .........  .........  .........      2,250  .........      2,250      2,250
             Earmark)................................
            Urban Transp. Saf. Sys. Ctr.--Phila.       .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
             (1997 Earmark)..........................
            New York Thruway (1997 Earmark)..........  .........      3,000  .........  .........  .........      3,000  .........      3,000      3,000
            Advanced Rail/Hwy. Crossings--NY (1997     .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
             Earmark)................................
            Other....................................  .........      5,845  .........  .........  .........      5,845  .........      5,845      5,845
            I-95 Corridor Evaluations................  .........        325  .........  .........  .........        325  .........        325        325
        Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor..............  .........      7,680  .........  .........  .........      7,680  .........      7,680      7,680
        Houston Corridor.............................  .........      3,440  .........  .........  .........      3,440  .........      3,440      3,440
            1997 Earmark.............................  .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
            Other....................................  .........      1,440  .........  .........  .........      1,440  .........      1,440      1,440
        Southern California Corridor.................  .........      9,560  .........  .........  .........      9,560  .........      9,560      9,560
            Inglewood, California (1997 Earmark).....  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
            Other....................................  .........      8,560  .........  .........  .........      8,560  .........      8,560      8,560
    Other Corridors..................................     10,500     27,100  .........  .........  .........     27,100  .........     27,100     27,100
        Utah Advanced Traffic Mgmt. System (1997       .........      5,000  .........  .........  .........      5,000  .........      5,000      5,000
         Earmark)....................................
        Haz. Mat. Intermodal Monitoring Sys. (NIER)        2,000      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
         (1997 Ear-  mark)...........................
        Minnesota Guidestar (1997 Earmark)...........  .........      3,600  .........  .........  .........      3,600  .........      3,600      3,600
        I-10 Mobile, Alabama Causeway (1997 Earmark).  .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
        Mobile Adv. Traf. Mgmt. Sys., Montgomery,      .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
         Ala. (1997 Earmark).........................
        Nashville, Tenn. Traffic Guidance Sys. (1997   .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
         Earmark)....................................
        Green Light CVO Project, Oregon (1997              7,000      7,000  .........  .........  .........      7,000  .........      7,000      7,000
         Earmark)....................................
        Kansas City, Mo. (Region) (1997 Earmark).....  .........      2,500  .........  .........  .........      2,500  .........      2,500      2,500
        US/Canada CVO (1997 Earmark).................      1,500      1,500  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500
        Rochester, NY Congestion Mgmt. (1997 Earmark)  .........      1,500  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500
        Johnson City, Tennessee (1995 Earmark).......  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Johnson City, Tennessee (1996 Earmark).......  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Southern State Parkway (Rome Lab)............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
PROGRAM SUPPORT......................................  .........      9,461  .........        200  .........      9,661      8,326      1,335      9,661
    ITS America......................................  .........      2,605  .........  .........  .........      2,605      2,605  .........      2,605
        Regular Contract.............................  .........      2,605  .........  .........  .........      2,605      2,605  .........      2,605
        Kassoff White Papers, etc....................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Mitre Corporation................................  .........      5,587  .........  .........  .........      5,587      4,455      1,132      5,587
    Volpe............................................  .........        700  .........  .........  .........        700        700  .........        700
    ENO Foundation (Battelle)........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Other Support Services...........................  .........        467  .........  .........  .........        467        464          3        467
    APTS Program Support.............................  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200  .........        200        200
ITS International Prog. Supp. (Farradyne)............  .........        100  .........  .........  .........        100        100  .........        100
Miscellaneous (Interest, etc.).......................  .........          2  .........  .........  .........          2          2  .........          2
NAT'L. ADV. DRIVER SIMULATOR (NADS) 1997 Earmark.....  .........  .........     14,000  .........  .........     14,000  .........     14,000     14,000
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL....................................     34,073    203,816     25,150      3,475  .........    232,441    120,358    112,083    232,441
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Fiscal year 1997 GOE amount excludes $1.642 million associated with ITS share of $3 million ``accountwide adjustments'' shown on page 43 of
  Conference Report 104-785. Fiscal year 1997 ISTEA amount reflects an additional $917 thousand reduction associated with Sec. 1003 of Public Law 102-
  240 (ISTEA) due to Treasury Dept. error in HTF receipts.


                                       INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 1998 SPENDING PLAN
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Fiscal year 1998 budget
                   ACTIVITY/PROJECT                       CVO        FHWA      NHTSA       FTA        FRA       TOTAL   --------------------------------
                                                                                                                            GOE       ISTEA      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       SUMMARY
 
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.............................      7,500     25,900     13,650      2,450      3,500     45,500     33,000     12,500     45,500
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL.....................  .........      6,750  .........        750  .........      7,500      7,500  .........      7,500
    CRASH AVOIDANCE RESEARCH.........................  .........  .........     12,500  .........  .........     12,500  .........     12,500     12,500
    ENABLING.........................................  .........      5,650      1,150        700  .........      7,500      7,500  .........      7,500
    RURAL RESEARCH...................................  .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000      2,000  .........      2,000
    HIGH RISK RESEARCH...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    OTHER RESEARCH...................................  .........      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000      4,000  .........      4,000
    ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH.............  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS....................      7,500      7,500  .........  .........  .........      7,500      7,500  .........      7,500
    HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH..  .........  .........  .........  .........      3,500      3,500      3,500  .........      3,500
ADVANCED VEHICLE CONTROL & INFORMATION SYSTEMS.......  .........     25,000  .........      1,000  .........     26,000  .........     26,000     26,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS....................................      2,000      7,000     12,500      5,000  .........     24,500  .........     24,500     24,500
    APTS.............................................  .........  .........  .........      5,000  .........      5,000  .........      5,000      5,000
    CVO..............................................      2,000      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
    CRASH AVOIDANCE..................................  .........  .........     12,500  .........  .........     12,500  .........     12,500     12,500
    RURAL............................................  .........      5,000  .........  .........  .........      5,000  .........      5,000      5,000
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT........................        350      6,800      1,200      1,000  .........      9,000      9,000  .........      9,000
    ITS Field Evaluations............................        350      5,050      1,200      1,000  .........      7,250      7,250  .........      7,250
    ITS Program Assessment...........................  .........      1,750  .........  .........  .........      1,750      1,750  .........      1,750
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS...........................        500     12,000  .........      1,000  .........     13,000  .........     13,000     13,000
    ARCHITECTURE.....................................  .........      2,800  .........  .........  .........      2,800  .........      2,800      2,800
    STANDARDS........................................        500      9,200  .........      1,000  .........     10,200  .........     10,200     10,200
MAINSTREAMING........................................      2,750     17,700  .........      4,300  .........     22,000      3,000     19,000     22,000
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.............................      1,500      3,500  .........      1,500  .........      5,000  .........      5,000      5,000
    PLANNING/POLICY..................................  .........      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000  .........      4,000      4,000
    TRAINING.........................................      1,250      7,500  .........      2,500  .........     10,000  .........     10,000     10,000
    AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY...........................  .........      2,700  .........        300  .........      3,000      3,000  .........      3,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT......................................  .........      9,200  .........        800  .........     10,000      9,000      1,000     10,000
CORRIDORS PROGRAM....................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM....................     25,000    100,000  .........  .........  .........    100,000    100,000  .........    100,000
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL....................................     38,100    203,600     27,350     15,550      3,500    250,000     54,000    196,000    250,000
                                                      ==================================================================================================
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.............................      7,500     25,900     13,650      2,450      3,500     45,500     33,000     12,500     45,500
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL.....................  .........      6,750  .........        750  .........      7,500      7,500  .........      7,500
        Advanced Traffic Mgmt. Research (Incl. TML)..  .........      2,950  .........  .........  .........      2,950      2,950  .........      2,950
            Advanced Traffic Management..............  .........      2,200  .........  .........  .........      2,200      2,200  .........      2,200
            Traffic Mgmt. Center (TMC) Integration     .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
             Issues..................................
            Deployment Issues of Surveillance Systems  .........        250  .........  .........  .........        250        250  .........        250
        Support Systems..............................  .........      1,350  .........  .........  .........      1,350      1,350  .........      1,350
            Research & Analysis for ATMS.............  .........        750  .........  .........  .........        750        750  .........        750
            Internet Operation.......................  .........        100  .........  .........  .........        100        100  .........        100
            Supplemental Data Collection.............  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
        Models.......................................  .........      2,450  .........        750  .........      3,200      3,200  .........      3,200
            Enhancement and Maintenance of ITS Models  .........      1,500  .........        400  .........      1,900      1,900  .........      1,900
            ITS Deployment Analysis System...........  .........        450  .........        350  .........        800        800  .........        800
            ATMS Research Tools Database System......  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
    CRASH AVOIDANCE RESEARCH.........................  .........  .........     12,500  .........  .........     12,500  .........     12,500     12,500
        System for Assessing the Vehicle Motion Env.   .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
         (SAVEME)....................................
        Data Acquisition Sys. for Crash Avoid.         .........  .........      2,000  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
         Research (DASCAR)...........................
        Development of Objective Test Procedures.....  .........  .........      1,800  .........  .........      1,800  .........      1,800      1,800
        Variable Dynamics Test Vehicle (VDTV)........  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
        Integrated Demonstration and Testbed Vehicle.  .........  .........      3,000  .........  .........      3,000  .........      3,000      3,000
        Lane Change/Merge Performance Specification..  .........  .........      1,600  .........  .........      1,600  .........      1,600      1,600
        Cooperative Agreements with Industrial         .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
         Partners....................................
        Test Track Procedures/ITS System Performance.  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
        Support of AHS/Variable Dynamics Test Vehicle  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........        100        100
         (VDTV)......................................
        Continuation of Indefinite Quantity Contracts  .........  .........        750  .........  .........        750  .........        750        750
         (IQC).......................................
        System Contractor Support....................  .........  .........        250  .........  .........        250  .........        250        250
    ENABLING.........................................  .........      5,650      1,150        700  .........      7,500      7,500  .........      7,500
        Human Factors................................  .........      4,150      1,150        700  .........      6,000      6,000  .........      6,000
            ATMS/ATIS/APTS Human Factors Support.....  .........      1,975  .........        700  .........      2,675      2,675  .........      2,675
                Travel Information Effectiveness       .........  .........  .........        700  .........        700        700  .........        700
                 (Traffic/Transit)...................
                ATMS Human Factors Support...........  .........        400  .........  .........  .........        400        400  .........        400
                TMC Human Factors Research...........  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
                TMC Human Factors Computer-Aided       .........      1,075  .........  .........  .........      1,075      1,075  .........      1,075
                 Design System.......................
            Human Factors Research--Driver Vehicle     .........      2,175      1,150  .........  .........      3,325      3,325  .........      3,325
             Interface...............................
                Risk Compensation/Driver Acceptance..  .........  .........        400  .........  .........        400        400  .........        400
                Workload Evaluation of                 .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300        300  .........        300
                 Countermeasures.....................
                Driving Simulator Studies............  .........  .........        450  .........  .........        450        450  .........        450
                Integration of IVIS Subsystems.......  .........        725  .........  .........  .........        725        725  .........        725
                Technical Support....................  .........      1,200  .........  .........  .........      1,200      1,200  .........      1,200
                FHWA Simulator Upgrade...............  .........        250  .........  .........  .........        250        250  .........        250
        Communications...............................  .........      1,500  .........  .........  .........      1,500      1,500  .........      1,500
            DSRC Spectrum Issues.....................  .........        450  .........  .........  .........        450        450  .........        450
            Communications Alternatives..............  .........        550  .........  .........  .........        550        550  .........        550
            Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)        .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
             Testing.................................
    RURAL RESEARCH...................................  .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000      2,000  .........      2,000
        Development of Rural ITS Services............  .........      1,900  .........  .........  .........      1,900      1,900  .........      1,900
        Analysis of Site Characteristics.............  .........        100  .........  .........  .........        100        100  .........        100
    HIGH RISK RESEARCH...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    OTHER RESEARCH...................................  .........      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000      4,000  .........      4,000
        University Programs..........................  .........      3,250  .........  .........  .........      3,250      3,250  .........      3,250
            University Research/RCE's................  .........      2,250  .........  .........  .........      2,250      2,250  .........      2,250
            IDEA.....................................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
        Policy & Market Research for ITS.............  .........        400  .........  .........  .........        400        400  .........        400
        Electronic Support Services..................  .........        200  .........  .........  .........        200        200  .........        200
        Other........................................  .........        150  .........  .........  .........        150        150  .........        150
    ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH.............  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS....................      7,500      7,500  .........  .........  .........      7,500      7,500  .........      7,500
        SAFER/MCSAP SITES--System Develop. &               3,500      3,500  .........  .........  .........      3,500      3,500  .........      3,500
         Enhancement.................................
        CVISN Support................................      3,600      3,600  .........  .........  .........      3,600      3,600  .........      3,600
        Automated Compliance Review..................        400        400  .........  .........  .........        400        400  .........        400
    HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH..  .........  .........  .........  .........      3,500      3,500      3,500  .........      3,500
ADVANCED VEHICLE CONTROL & INFORMATION SYSTEMS.......  .........     25,000  .........      1,000  .........     26,000  .........     26,000     26,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS....................................      2,000      7,000     12,500      5,000  .........     24,500  .........     24,500     24,500
    APTS.............................................  .........  .........  .........      5,000  .........      5,000  .........      5,000      5,000
        Regional Fleet Management....................  .........  .........  .........      4,000  .........      4,000  .........      4,000      4,000
        Hybrid Bank-Proximity Card...................  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
    CVO..............................................      2,000      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
    CRASH AVOIDANCE..................................  .........  .........     12,500  .........  .........     12,500  .........     12,500     12,500
        Rear End Collision Avoidance Systems.........  .........  .........      7,000  .........  .........      7,000  .........      7,000      7,000
        Heavy Vehicle Intelligent Cruise Control.....  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
        Road Departure...............................  .........  .........      3,000  .........  .........      3,000  .........      3,000      3,000
        Hvy. Vehicle Stability Enhan. by Selective     .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
         Electronic Brak-  ing.......................
        On-Road Eval. of Hvy. Vehicle Drowsy Driver    .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
         Detection Sys...............................
    RURAL............................................  .........      5,000  .........  .........  .........      5,000  .........      5,000      5,000
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT........................        350      6,800      1,200      1,000  .........      9,000      9,000  .........      9,000
    ITS Field Evaluations............................        350      5,050      1,200      1,000  .........      7,250      7,250  .........      7,250
    ITS Program Assessment...........................  .........      1,750  .........  .........  .........      1,750      1,750  .........      1,750
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS...........................        500     12,000  .........      1,000  .........     13,000  .........     13,000     13,000
    ARCHITECTURE.....................................  .........      2,800  .........  .........  .........      2,800  .........      2,800      2,800
        Architecture Maintenance.....................  .........      2,500  .........  .........  .........      2,500  .........      2,500      2,500
        Engineering Support..........................  .........        300  .........  .........  .........        300  .........        300        300
    STANDARDS........................................        500      9,200  .........      1,000  .........     10,200  .........     10,200     10,200
        Standards Development Activities.............  .........      6,000  .........  .........  .........      6,000  .........      6,000      6,000
        Technical Support............................        500      2,200  .........        800  .........      3,000  .........      3,000      3,000
            Program Management.......................  .........      1,700  .........  .........  .........      1,700  .........      1,700      1,700
            DSRC/EDI Support for CVO.................        500        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
            Transit Standards Support................  .........  .........  .........        800  .........        800  .........        800        800
        Research and Development.....................  .........        400  .........  .........  .........        400  .........        400        400
            In-vehicle ICON Standards................  .........        400  .........  .........  .........        400  .........        400        400
        Transit International Support................  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200  .........        200        200
        Conformity Assessment........................  .........        600  .........  .........  .........        600  .........        600        600
MAINSTREAMING........................................      2,750     17,700  .........      4,300  .........     22,000      3,000     19,000     22,000
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.............................      1,500      3,500  .........      1,500  .........      5,000  .........      5,000      5,000
        Information and Technology Transfer..........  .........      1,500  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500
        Transit Technical Assistance.................  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500
            Technical Assistance to Transit            .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500  .........        500        500
             Authorities.............................
            APTS Mobile Showcase.....................  .........  .........  .........        800  .........        800  .........        800        800
            Electronic Payment Guidelines............  .........  .........  .........        200  .........        200  .........        200        200
        Commercial Vehicle Operations................      1,500      1,500  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500
            State, Regional, Natl. Forums/Technical        1,000      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
             Guidance................................
            Border Technical Guidance................        250        250  .........  .........  .........        250  .........        250        250
            Deployment Technical Assistance..........        250        250  .........  .........  .........        250  .........        250        250
        Technical Assistance for Rural ITS Planning..  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
    PLANNING/POLICY..................................  .........      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000  .........      4,000      4,000
    TRAINING.........................................      1,250      7,500  .........      2,500  .........     10,000  .........     10,000     10,000
        National ITS Training Initiative.............  .........      6,250  .........      2,500  .........      8,750  .........      8,750      8,750
        CVO Training.................................      1,250      1,250  .........  .........  .........      1,250  .........      1,250      1,250
    AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY...........................  .........      2,700  .........        300  .........      3,000      3,000  .........      3,000
        ITI Awareness Campaign.......................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
        Publications, Exhibits, etc..................  .........      1,700  .........        300  .........      2,000      2,000  .........      2,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT......................................  .........      9,200  .........        800  .........     10,000      9,000      1,000     10,000
CORRIDORS PROGRAM....................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM....................     25,000    100,000  .........  .........  .........    100,000  .........    100,000    100,000
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL....................................     38,100    203,600     27,350     15,550      3,500    250,000     54,000    196,000    250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 1999 SPENDING PLAN
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Fiscal year 1999 budget
                   ACTIVITY/PROJECT                       CVO        FHWA      NHTSA       FTA        FRA       TOTAL   --------------------------------
                                                                                                                            GOE       ISTEA      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       SUMMARY
 
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.............................      8,000     41,300     12,500      2,300      2,500     58,600     29,100     29,500     58,600
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL.....................  .........      5,500  .........        500  .........      6,000      6,000  .........      6,000
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH (FORMERLY AVCIS/AHS)  .........     16,700     12,500        300  .........     29,500  .........     29,500     29,500
    ENABLING.........................................  .........      3,500  .........  .........  .........      3,500      3,500  .........      3,500
    RURAL RESEARCH...................................  .........      3,400  .........  .........  .........      3,400      3,400  .........      3,400
    OTHER RESEARCH...................................  .........      3,200  .........  .........  .........      3,200      3,200  .........      3,200
    ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH.............  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500  .........      1,500
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS....................      8,000      8,000  .........  .........  .........      8,000      8,000  .........      8,000
    HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH..  .........  .........  .........  .........      2,500      2,500      2,500  .........      2,500
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT SUMMARY.......................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS....................................      4,000     11,100     10,000      7,000  .........     28,100  .........     28,100     28,100
    APTS.............................................  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE (CRASH AVOIDANCE IN PY)......      4,000      4,000     10,000      2,500  .........     16,500  .........     16,500     16,500
    RURAL............................................  .........      7,100  .........      2,500  .........      9,600  .........      9,600      9,600
EVALUATION/PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT.................  .........     12,400  .........  .........  .........     12,400     12,400  .........     12,400
    EVALUATIONS......................................  .........      7,555  .........  .........  .........      7,555      7,555  .........      7,555
    ITS PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT....................  .........      4,845  .........  .........  .........      4,845      4,845  .........      4,845
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS...........................        500     18,700  .........        700  .........     19,400  .........     19,400     19,400
    ARCHITECTURE.....................................  .........      5,400  .........  .........  .........      5,400  .........      5,400      5,400
    STANDARDS........................................        500     13,300  .........        700  .........     14,000  .........     14,000     14,000
MAINSTREAMING........................................      2,875     16,900        140      4,460  .........     21,500      2,500     19,000     21,500
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.............................      1,700      5,100  .........      1,400  .........      6,500  .........      6,500      6,500
    PLANNING/POLICY..................................  .........      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000        500      3,500      4,000
    TRAINING.........................................      1,000      6,500  .........      2,500  .........      9,000  .........      9,000      9,000
    AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY...........................        175      1,300        140        560  .........      2,000      2,000  .........      2,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT......................................  .........      9,200  .........        800  .........     10,000     10,000  .........     10,000
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM....................     25,000    100,000  .........  .........  .........    100,000  .........    100,000    100,000
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL....................................     40,375    209,600     22,640     15,260      2,500    250,000     54,000    196,000    250,000
                                                      ==================================================================================================
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.............................      8,000     41,300     12,500      2,300      2,500     58,600     29,100     29,500     58,600
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL.....................  .........      5,500  .........        500  .........      6,000      6,000  .........      6,000
        Advanced Traffic Mgmt. Research (Incl. TML)..  .........      2,500  .........  .........  .........      2,500      2,500  .........      2,500
        Support Systems..............................  .........        800  .........  .........  .........        800        800  .........        800
            Research & Analysis for ATMS.............  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
            Internet Operation.......................  .........        100  .........  .........  .........        100        100  .........        100
            Supplemental Data Collection.............  .........        200  .........  .........  .........        200        200  .........        200
        Models.......................................  .........      2,200  .........        500  .........      2,700      2,700  .........      2,700
            Enhancement and Maintenance of ITS Models  .........      1,250  .........        500  .........      1,750      1,750  .........      1,750
            ATMS Research Tools Database System......  .........        450  .........  .........  .........        450        450  .........        450
            Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) System..  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH (FORMERLY AVCIS/AHS)  .........     16,700     12,500        300  .........     29,500  .........     29,500     29,500
        Tool Development.............................  .........        900      1,000  .........  .........      1,900  .........      1,900      1,900
            Simulation Tools.........................  .........        475  .........  .........  .........        475  .........        475        475
            Upgrade FHWA Driving Testbed.............  .........        425  .........  .........  .........        425  .........        425        425
            Development of Objective Test Procedures/  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
             CAMP....................................
        Performance Specification & Benefits Estimate  .........  .........      5,500  .........  .........      5,500  .........      5,500      5,500
         Validation..................................
            Application of NADS......................  .........  .........        750  .........  .........        750  .........        750        750
            Benefits Associated with Enhanced Vision   .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
             Systems.................................
            Utilization of Test Vehicles.............  .........  .........      1,250  .........  .........      1,250  .........      1,250      1,250
            Benefits Analyses........................  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
            Application of SAVME.....................  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
            Application of VDTV......................  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
        Intelligent Vehicle Development..............  .........      7,500      1,500  .........  .........      9,000  .........      9,000      9,000
            Level 1 Design/Build IVI.................  .........      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000  .........      4,000      4,000
            Integrate Crash Avoidance Technologies...  .........  .........      1,500  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500
            Infrastructure Preparation for Level 1...  .........      1,500  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500
            Develop Integrated DVI for Multiple        .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
             Systems.................................
        Critical Technology..........................  .........      8,300      4,500        300  .........     13,100  .........     13,100     13,100
            Driver Control Assistance................  .........      3,000  .........  .........  .........      3,000  .........      3,000      3,000
            Extend Performance Specifications........  .........  .........      2,000  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
            Develop User Services and Stakeholder      .........      1,200  .........  .........  .........      1,200  .........      1,200      1,200
             Involvement.............................
            Transit Study............................  .........  .........  .........        300  .........        300  .........        300        300
            Human Factors............................  .........      4,100      2,500  .........  .........      6,600  .........      6,600      6,600
                Driver Workload Compensatory Action..  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
                Warning Reliability and Driver         .........        600  .........  .........  .........        600  .........        600        600
                 Reactions...........................
                Human Factors Aspects of Enhanced      .........        750  .........  .........  .........        750  .........        750        750
                 Display.............................
                Special IVIS Needs for Emergency       .........        750  .........  .........  .........        750  .........        750        750
                 Vehicle Operations..................
                HF Issues for Driver Interaction       .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
                 Modes...............................
                Driver Behavioral Adaptation.........  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
                Suitability of DVI with Special Needs  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
                Adverse Safety Effects of In-Vehicle   .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
                 Devices.............................
                In-House Human Factors Studies.......  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
                Driver Behavior Data Collection Using  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
                 DASCAR..............................
    ENABLING.........................................  .........      3,500  .........  .........  .........      3,500      3,500  .........      3,500
        Human Factors Research--ATMS.................  .........      2,400  .........  .........  .........      2,400      2,400  .........      2,400
            Computer Aided Design for Traffic Mgmt.    .........        850  .........  .........  .........        850        850  .........        850
             Centers.................................
            Traffic Mgmt. Center Research............  .........        800  .........  .........  .........        800        800  .........        800
            Support Services.........................  .........        750  .........  .........  .........        750        750  .........        750
        Communications and Radionavigation...........  .........      1,100  .........  .........  .........      1,100      1,100  .........      1,100
            DSRC Spectrum Issues.....................  .........        800  .........  .........  .........        800        800  .........        800
            Wide Area Communications for Traffic       .........        300  .........  .........  .........        300        300  .........        300
             Mgmt. Systems...........................
    RURAL RESEARCH...................................  .........      3,400  .........  .........  .........      3,400      3,400  .........      3,400
        Development of Rural ITS Services............  .........      3,400  .........  .........  .........      3,400      3,400  .........      3,400
    OTHER RESEARCH...................................  .........      3,200  .........  .........  .........      3,200      3,200  .........      3,200
        University Programs..........................  .........      2,300  .........  .........  .........      2,300      2,300  .........      2,300
            University Research/RCE's................  .........      1,800  .........  .........  .........      1,800      1,800  .........      1,800
            IDEA.....................................  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500        500  .........        500
        Electronic Support Services..................  .........        230  .........  .........  .........        230        230  .........        230
        ADP Support Services.........................  .........        550  .........  .........  .........        550        550  .........        550
        Other........................................  .........        120  .........  .........  .........        120        120  .........        120
    ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH.............  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500  .........      1,500
        Advanced Fleet Management Research...........  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500  .........        500
        Transit Radio Spectrum Allocation Impact       .........  .........  .........        100  .........        100        100  .........        100
         Assessment..................................
        Traveler Information ADA Compatibility.......  .........  .........  .........        900  .........        900        900  .........        900
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS....................      8,000      8,000  .........  .........  .........      8,000      8,000  .........      8,000
        Safety Systems Deployment Support............      7,200      7,200  .........  .........  .........      7,200      7,200  .........      7,200
            Safety Development and Enhancement.......      2,050      2,050  .........  .........  .........      2,050      2,050  .........      2,050
            Systems Operations and Support...........      2,250      2,250  .........  .........  .........      2,250      2,250  .........      2,250
            Architectural Standards Support and            2,900      2,900  .........  .........  .........      2,900      2,900  .........      2,900
             Integration.............................
        Advances in Roadside Inspection Technology...        450        450  .........  .........  .........        450        450  .........        450
        Automated Compliance Review..................        350        350  .........  .........  .........        350        350  .........        350
    HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH..  .........  .........  .........  .........      2,500      2,500      2,500  .........      2,500
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT SUMMARY.......................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  .........      1,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS....................................      4,000     11,100     10,000      7,000  .........     28,100  .........     28,100     28,100
    APTS.............................................  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
        Asynchronous Demand Responsive Transit         .........  .........  .........        300  .........        300  .........        300        300
         (ADART).....................................
        Hybrid Bank-Proximity Card Phase III.........  .........  .........  .........      1,700  .........      1,700  .........      1,700      1,700
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE (CRASH AVOIDANCE IN PY)......      4,000      4,000     10,000      2,500  .........     16,500  .........     16,500     16,500
        Integrated Transit Vehicle...................  .........  .........  .........      2,500  .........      2,500  .........      2,500      2,500
        Rear End Collision Avoidance Systems.........  .........  .........      7,000  .........  .........      7,000  .........      7,000      7,000
        Road Departure Crash Avoidance Systems.......  .........  .........      3,000  .........  .........      3,000  .........      3,000      3,000
        Intelligent Vehicle Heavy Truck..............      4,000      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000  .........      4,000      4,000
    RURAL............................................  .........      7,100  .........      2,500  .........      9,600  .........      9,600      9,600
        Traveler Safety and Security.................  .........      1,500  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500
        Rural Emergency Services.....................  .........      1,600  .........  .........  .........      1,600  .........      1,600      1,600
        Rural Infrastructure Operations and            .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
         Maintenance.................................
        Rural Fleet Operations and Maintenance.......  .........  .........  .........      2,500  .........      2,500  .........      2,500      2,500
        Preliminary Integrated Systems...............  .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
EVALUATION/PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT.................  .........     12,400  .........  .........  .........     12,400     12,400  .........     12,400
    EVALUATIONS......................................  .........      7,555  .........  .........  .........      7,555      7,555  .........      7,555
        Metropolitan Model Deployment................  .........        800  .........  .........  .........        800        800  .........        800
        CVISN Model Deployment.......................  .........        490  .........  .........  .........        490        490  .........        490
        Field Operation Tests Cross-Cutting Analyses.  .........        900  .........  .........  .........        900        900  .........        900
        Rural Field Operational Tests................  .........      2,290  .........  .........  .........      2,290      2,290  .........      2,290
        Intelligent Vehicle Operational Tests........  .........      2,250  .........  .........  .........      2,250      2,250  .........      2,250
        Intermodal Freight Evaluation................  .........        150  .........  .........  .........        150        150  .........        150
        APTS Field Operational Tests.................  .........        300  .........  .........  .........        300        300  .........        300
        Highway-Rail Field Operational Tests.........  .........        375  .........  .........  .........        375        375  .........        375
    ITS PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT....................  .........      4,845  .........  .........  .........      4,845      4,845  .........      4,845
        ITS Deployment Tracking......................  .........        895  .........  .........  .........        895        895  .........        895
        Program Tracking.............................  .........        250  .........  .........  .........        250        250  .........        250
        Policy Assessment............................  .........      3,700  .........  .........  .........      3,700      3,700  .........      3,700
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS...........................        500     18,700  .........        700  .........     19,400  .........     19,400     19,400
    ARCHITECTURE.....................................  .........      5,400  .........  .........  .........      5,400  .........      5,400      5,400
        DOT Architecture Activities..................  .........      3,400  .........  .........  .........      3,400  .........      3,400      3,400
        In-Vehicle ITS Systems Architecture..........  .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
    STANDARDS........................................        500     13,300  .........        700  .........     14,000  .........     14,000     14,000
        Research and Development.....................  .........      1,100  .........  .........  .........      1,100  .........      1,100      1,100
            In-vehicle ICON Standards................  .........        600  .........  .........  .........        600  .........        600        600
            Standardization of ATIS Information        .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
             Across Media............................
        Standards Development Activities.............        500      8,600  .........        700  .........      9,300  .........      9,300      9,300
            Infrastructure and Safety................  .........      7,100  .........  .........  .........      7,100  .........      7,100      7,100
            DSRC/EDI Support for CVO.................        500        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
            Transit..................................  .........  .........  .........        700  .........        700  .........        700        700
            Federal Rulemaking Support...............  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
        User Implementation Guides...................  .........        600  .........  .........  .........        600  .........        600        600
        International Activity.......................  .........        300  .........  .........  .........        300  .........        300        300
        Testing and Integration......................  .........      2,200  .........  .........  .........      2,200  .........      2,200      2,200
        Data Registration............................  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
MAINSTREAMING........................................      2,875     16,900        140      4,460  .........     21,500      2,500     19,000     21,500
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.............................      1,700      5,100  .........      1,400  .........      6,500  .........      6,500      6,500
        Information and Technology Transfer..........  .........      3,000  .........  .........  .........      3,000  .........      3,000      3,000
            Specifications and Contract Mgmt.........  .........        815  .........  .........  .........        815  .........        815        815
            Grass Roots Involvement..................  .........        535  .........  .........  .........        535  .........        535        535
            Tailored Technical Assistance............  .........        650  .........  .........  .........        650  .........        650        650
            Guidance Documents.......................  .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
        Transit Technical Assistance.................  .........  .........  .........      1,400  .........      1,400  .........      1,400      1,400
            Technical Assistance to Transit            .........  .........  .........        550  .........        550  .........        550        550
             Authorities.............................
            Industry Cooperation.....................  .........  .........  .........        350  .........        350  .........        350        350
            APTS Mobile Showcase.....................  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500  .........        500        500
        Commercial Vehicle Operations................      1,700      1,700  .........  .........  .........      1,700  .........      1,700      1,700
            State, Regional, Natl. Forums/Technical        1,060      1,060  .........  .........  .........      1,060  .........      1,060      1,060
             Guidance................................
            Border Technical Guidance................        500        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
            Deployment Technical Assistance..........        140        140  .........  .........  .........        140  .........        140        140
        Technical Assistance for Rural ITS Planning..  .........        400  .........  .........  .........        400  .........        400        400
    PLANNING/POLICY..................................  .........      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000        500      3,500      4,000
        IDAS Case Studies/Lessons Learned............  .........        500  .........  .........  .........        500  .........        500        500
        Development of ITS Module Within TRANSIMS....  .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........      2,000      2,000
        Support for Developing Regional/Statewide      .........        250  .........  .........  .........        250        250  .........        250
         Framework...................................
        Management & Operations in Transportation      .........      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
         Planning....................................
        Role of ITS in Supporting FHWA/FTA Mobility    .........        250  .........  .........  .........        250        250  .........        250
         Goal........................................
    TRAINING.........................................      1,000      6,500  .........      2,500  .........      9,000  .........      9,000      9,000
        National ITS Training Initiative.............  .........      4,000  .........  .........  .........      4,000  .........      4,000      4,000
        CVO Training.................................      1,000      1,000  .........  .........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000      1,000
        Standards Training/Technology Transfer.......  .........      1,500  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500      1,500
        FTA Professional Capacity Building...........  .........  .........  .........      2,500  .........      2,500  .........      2,500      2,500
    AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY...........................        175      1,300        140        560  .........      2,000      2,000  .........      2,000
        ITI Awareness Activities.....................         75        300  .........        360  .........        660        660  .........        660
        Publications, Exhibits, etc..................        100      1,000        140        200  .........      1,340      1,340  .........      1,340
PROGRAM SUPPORT......................................  .........      9,200  .........        800  .........     10,000     10,000  .........     10,000
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM....................     25,000    100,000  .........  .........  .........    100,000    100,000  .........    100,000
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL....................................     40,375    209,600     22,640     15,260      2,500    250,000     54,000    196,000    250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What is the status of each of the projects in the ITS 
program related to highway/rail grade crossings? For each project, 
please list accomplishments to date, purposes and objectives, amount 
obligated, amount planned to be spent, amount unobligated, scope and 
nature of the project, and expected date of completion. What has been 
achieved with past ITS investments in this area?
    Answer. There are two ITS investments involving highway/rail 
intersections. Both have been earmarked projects. The first project 
involves the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS), managed by Federal 
Railroad Administration, and tested in Pueblo Colorado.
    Section 1072 of the 1991 ISTEA required the testing of VPAS and 
comparable systems to determine their feasibility for use by priority 
vehicles as an effective highway-rail grade crossing safety device. 
VPAS is an in-vehicle device, mounted to the dashboard, that provides 
both an audible and visual warning to the driver of a priority vehicle 
(ambulance, school bus, police car, etc) that a train is approaching, 
or in, a grade crossing.
    Total funding available to conduct this testing was $1 million, 
with $600,000 transferred from FHWA to FRA in fiscal year 1994 and 
$400,000 in fiscal year 1995.
    Reliability testing of the prototype systems was conducted at the 
Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado. The 
prototypes were tested for their maximum range, reliability, ease of 
installation, etc. The reliability testing has been completed and the 
Final Test Report has been submitted. The Evaluation Report final draft 
should be finished by the end of May, 1998.
    Based on (1) the conclusions of the evaluation report, (2) a 
comparison of the tested systems with the recently developed ITS User 
Service #30 element of the National ITS Architecture, (3) the final 
accounting of costs for the testing and evaluation work now being 
completed, and (4) the results of ongoing independent demonstrations of 
still other concepts in Minnesota and Illinois, a decision will be made 
whether or not to conduct further reliability or revenue-service 
testing of the prototype systems addressed in this project.
    Three systems were tested:
    3-point system--by SmartStops, Inc.--The original concept had a 
transceiver on the locomotive, one at the grade crossing and a receiver 
in the priority vehicle. The locomotive-mounted transceiver would 
broadcast continuously, and as it approached a grade crossing the 
transceiver at the crossing would be activated, broadcasting a signal 
to any equipped priority vehicles in the area and also returning a 
message to the locomotive that the crossing system had been activated. 
This system worked reasonably well, although it would require some 
modifications to reduce its activation range, temperature response, and 
so on, before any further testing or development were to occur. 
However, after discussions with several railroads, no railroad would 
allow the mounting of a transmitter for this purpose on their 
locomotives. As a result, the concept had to be modified to use a 
wayside detector. The manufacturer is in the process of modifying their 
system now, and will have to return to TTC to do basic reliability 
testing, should FRA determine that such further testing is advisable.
    1-point system by EARS.--This system is a receiver mounted in the 
priority vehicle which is activated by the sound of the train horn. It 
is an outgrowth of a system used to help hearing-impaired drivers hear 
emergency sirens. However, this system did not perform well. It 
suffered from a lack of range and several other problems that lead to a 
large number of false alarms.
    1-point system by Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems.--This system is a 
receiver mounted in the priority vehicle that is activated by the 
train's Front/Rear End Device (FRED). The FRED is used to monitor air 
brake pressure and continuously updates via radio an indicator in the 
locomotive cab. This device is used on more than 85 percent of the 
freight trains in the country and has an FRA-approved usage and 
maintenance protocol. This system worked very well, although it had an 
excessive range problem, but the range should be reducible to minimize 
false alarms. However, the concept is not compatible with the ITS User 
Service #30. This system would need to be modified for purposes of any 
further testing.
    A fourth system selected for testing, a 2-point system which used a 
transmitter on the locomotive and a receiver in the priority vehicle, 
was dropped from consideration because of the failure of the 
manufacturer, RF Solutions, to supply a prototype for testing.
    The second project includes the development of a prototype 
integrated warning system for use at railroad/highway grade crossings. 
This effort will demonstrate the benefits of an integrated approach for 
managing highway/rail crossings by sharing data between driver and 
train warning and control systems. This demonstration will employ an 
Intelligent Grade Crossing System (IGC), working in concert with an 
Intelligent Traffic System (ITS) and a modified radio communications-
based Automatic Train Control (ATC) system. This work is being 
conducted by the New York DOT under an earmark of $4,625,000, all ISTEA 
funds. The first phase is complete. The second phase, hardware 
development, is expected to be complete by September 30, 1998. The 
field testing and final evaluation of the system is expected to be 
complete by the first quarter in 2000.
    To date no fiscal year 1998 funds have been allocated to any 
Highway/Rail grade crossing projects. When funding is available, 
efforts will be primarily focused on the evaluation of GPS, full 
barrier systems and ``a 2nd train coming'' systems. A team within USDOT 
is now reviewing the earmarked projects of VPAS and Long Island 
Railroad to develop an ITS evaluation plan, to review lessons learned 
and to determine the next steps. Use of the VPAS technology is expected 
to be applied to other sites, but those sites have not been determined 
to date.
    In fiscal year 1999, the plans are to establish projects for 
integrating railroad technology with automatic traffic management 
systems, and for traffic signal preemption at crossings as well as 
health monitoring. The three projects included in the budget request 
are expected to cost $2.5 million.
    Question. Please compare your GOE expenditures for each of the last 
three years with the amounts appropriated for each ITS category of 
funds specified in the Conference report as well as amounts earmarked 
by the House or Senate reports that were not objected to in either the 
Senate report or in the Conference report. Indicate the amount of 
carryover funds for each year by category and explain any deviations 
from amounts specified in various congressional reports.
    Answer. The following table compares actual and/or planned GOE 
obligations for each of the last three fiscal years (1996, 1997 and 
1998) to the amounts for each ITS program area included in the annual 
conference reports. This table also reflects unobligated balances at 
the end of each of the aforementioned fiscal years by program category. 
The amounts reflected in fiscal year 1998 assumes that we receive the 
full $130.16 million included in the General Operating Expenses account 
under Public Law 105-66.
    Any deviations between the funds actually used and/or projected to 
be used by program category is minor. Funds actually used for each ITS 
program within the General Operating Expenses account will always fall 
within the 10 percent plus or minus variance historically allowed by 
the Committee.

                                   INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF FUNDING--GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year                            Fiscal year                            Fiscal year
                                         1996        Actual    Unoblig. 9/      1997        Actual    Unoblig. 9/      1998       Proposed       Est.
          Program category            dollars in   oblig.\1\      30/96      dollars in   oblig.\2\      30/97      dollars in   oblig.\3\   unoblig. 9/
                                        report                                 report                                 report                    30/98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and development...........       37,479       36,166        2,237       29,000       26,393  ...........       31,500       31,500  ...........
Operational tests..................       32,500       31,052          587       56,000       56,447  ...........       83,900       83,900  ...........
Commercial vehicle oper............       14,500       13,750          435  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Automated hwy. system..............       14,000       14,000           23       22,000       22,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Adv. technology applic.............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Corridors program..................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Deployment support.................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Program and system support.........       11,300       10,034        1,096        8,000        8,326          355        7,760        7,760  ...........
System architecture................  ...........  ...........  ...........        5,000        5,000           32  ...........  ...........  ...........
Congested corridors................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Model deployment...................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Evaluation.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........        2,000        1,999  ...........        7,000        7,000  ...........
Mainstreaming......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          193  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Nat'l adv. driver sim. (NADS)......  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................      109,779      105,002        4,378      122,000      120,358          387      130,160      130,160  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1996 amounts exclude $4.777 in reductions associated with sec. 335 of Public Law 104-50.
\2\ Fiscal year 1997 amounts exclude $1.642 million in ``accountwide savings'' (pg. 43 conf. rept. 104-785).
\3\ Fiscal year 1998 amounts assume $130.16 million included in the appn. act will be made available to the ITS program.

    Question. Please prepare a list of all of the operational tests 
that have not yet been completed. Please indicate their starting date, 
expected date of completion, expected submittal date of final 
evaluation, remaining unobligated balances, and remaining obligated 
balances.
    Answer. With the exception of the remaining obligated balances, our 
response is provided in the tables below. In order to provide answers 
regarding unspent balances, we will have to work with our financial 
administrators both in Headquarters and in the various regional and 
division offices to search data bases and cross-reference accounting 
codes.
    Please note that the ``expected date of completion'' and ``expected 
date of submittal of final evaluation'' are the same dates. Projects 
are not considered completed until the final, publicly available, 
evaluation report is submitted and approved.
    There is currently no unobligated balance of ITS funds associated 
with any of these projects.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Expected Completion/
             Project                Start Date      Final Report Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
         SYSTEMS (ATMS)
 
FAST-TRAC.......................  4/92.........  6/2000.
Integrated Ramp Metering/         9/93.........  3/99.
 Adaptive Signal Control.
Mobile Communications System....  5/94.........  6/98 (Current best
                                                  estimate).
Montgomery County ATMS..........  7/94.........  9/99.
North Seattle ATMS..............  3/94.........  6/98.
San Antonio Transguide..........  8/93.........  11/98.
Satellite Communications          10/92........  6/98.
 Feasibility.
SCOOT Adaptive Control System...  9/93.........  6/98.
Spread Spectrum Radio Traffic     7/94.........  6/98.
 Interconnect.
 
  ADVANCED TRAVELER INFORMATION
         SYSTEMS (ATIS)
 
DIRECT..........................  5/91.........  4/98.
Denver, CO Hogback Multi-Modal    5/93.........  9/98.
 Transfer Center.
Railroad Crossing Vehicle         10/97........  11/98.
 Proximity Alert System, Phase
 II.
Railroad Highway Crossing-Long    7/95.........  9/98.
 Island.
Seattle Wide-Area Information     8/94.........  7/98.
 for Travelers.
Travinfo........................  4/93.........  12/98.
Trilogy.........................  7/94.........  6/98.
 
 ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
          SYSTEM (APTS)
 
LYNX Passenger Travel Planning    1/96.........  9/98.
 System.
Miami Real-Time Passenger         7/95.........  6/99.
 Information System.
Northern Virginia Regional Fare   9/96.........  5/99.
 System.
Blacksburg Rural Traveler         7/96.........  1/99.
 Information System.
Suburban Mobility Authority for   12/93........  6/98.
 Regional Trans (SMART).
Winston-Salem Mobility            6/96.........  8/99.
 Management, Phase II.
Houston Smart Commuter..........  2/93.........  10/99.
Ann Arbor Smart Intermodal......  7/91.........  6/98.
CTA (Chicago) Smart Intermodal..  7/91.........  5/98.
Delaware County Ridetracking....  9/92.........  4/98.
Smart Flexroute Integrated Real-  1/94.........  5/98.
 Time Enhancement System.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit         9/94.........  8/98.
 Personalized Public Transit.
Denver RTD Passenger Information  9/93.........  5/98.
 Display System.
Wilmington, Delaware Smart DART.  7/94.........  5/99.
NY City MTA Travel Information    9/94.........  9/98.
 System.
 
  ADVANCED RURAL TRANSPORTATION
         SYSTEMS (ARTS)
 
Travel-Aid......................  11/92........  7/98.
Idaho Storm Warning System......  6/93.........  8/98.
Advanced Rural Transportation     7/94.........  8/98.
 Information and Coordination.
Advanced Transportation Weather   5/95.........  8/98.
 Information System.
Herald En-Route Driver Advisory   1/95.........  9/98.
 via AM Subcarrier.
Arizona I-40 Traveler and         10/97........  5/99.
 Tourist Information System.
Branson, Missouri Trip (Travel    10/97........  5/99.
 and Recreational Information
 Project).
Cape Cod Rural Advanced           10/97........  6/99.
 Intermodal Transportation
 System.
Foretell--Integrating ITS With    10/97........  3/2000.
 Advanced Weather Prediction.
Greater Yellowstone Rural ITS     6/97.........  6/99.
 project.
North Florida Rural Transit       9/97.........  4/2000.
 Intelligent Transportation
 Systems.
 
  COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS
              (CVO)
 
Dynamic Truck Speed Warning for   6/93.........  10/98.
 Long Downgrades.
Electronic Clearance for          9/94.........  8/98.
 International Borders.
MONY (Detroit, MI, Buffalo, NY).  11/96........  3/98.
IBEX (Otay Mesa, CA)............  9/94.........  4/98.
EPIC (Nogales, AZ)..............  9/94.........  8/98.
ITS/CVO Greenlight Project......  10/94........  4/2000.
National Institute for            10/95........  12/98.
 Environmental Renewal (NIER).
Tranzit Xpress II...............  6/96.........  3/98.
Operation Respond...............  4/95.........  4/98.
 
  ADVANCED VEHICLE CONTROL AND
     SAFETY SYSTEMS (AVCSS)
 
Colorado Mayday System..........  10/94........  8/98.
Automated Collision Notification  9/95.........  10/98.
 System.
Intelligent Cruise Control......  9/95.........  6/98.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a list of all of the model deployment 
tests that have not yet been completed. Please indicate their starting 
date, expected date of completion, expected date of submittal of final 
evaluation, remaining unobligated balances, and remaining obligated 
balances.
    Answer. The selection of Seattle, Phoenix, San Antonio and New 
York/New Jersey/Connecticut area as metropolitan model deployments was 
announced in October, 1996. Seattle, Phoenix and San Antonio will be 
fully operational within the next few months, achieving the ambitious 
goal of deploying integrated, multimodal transportation management and 
traveler information systems within approximately 18 months of award of 
funds. A series of kick off events are planned to celebrate each site's 
success: Seattle on May 15, Phoenix the first week of June, and San 
Antonio in mid July. The New York/New Jersey/Connecticut model 
deployment is also progressing, with a kick off event to highlight 
their accomplishments tentatively scheduled for September. Data 
collection for the evaluation of the metropolitan model deployment 
projects will last approximately one year, and the final evaluation 
report is due in December, 1999. There are no unobligated balances. The 
Department does not monitor unspent balances. Determining the answer to 
this question will require a coordinated effort with our financial 
administrators to search databases and cross reference accounting 
codes.
    For commercial vehicle operations; the CVISN model deployment 
states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington were announced in October, 1996 to be 
funded on an incremental basis. The incremental funding was planned to 
be awarded as states progressed with implementation of CVISN. The 
initial funding in fiscal year 1996 was $0.5 million per state, with a 
50 percent match. In fiscal year 1997 an additional $0.5 million was 
provided to 7 of the 8 states, based upon specified achievements. 
Michigan was delayed in their planning. They hope to continue 
participation in fiscal year 1998. The actual cost of implementation of 
CVISN level one in the eight model deployment States was estimated at 
$6-8 million per State. Therefore, additional Federal funding of $2 to 
$3 million will be required to implement CVISN Level I in the model 
deployment States. If funding is available by September, 1998 the 
expected date of completion of CVISN model deployment level one is 
fiscal year 2000.
    Question. Please specify on a contract-by-contract basis how the 
fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997 and the fiscal year 1998 program 
support monies were used or will be used. Please indicate the scope, 
nature, and amount of each contract.
    Answer. There are two principal contractors that support the JPO 
staff; ITS America, and the Mitretek Corp. ITS America is the official 
advisory committee to the U.S. DOT on the ITS program, and organizes 
and staffs the national committees that address each major facet of the 
program. These committees are one of the formal forums to bring 
together technical expertise in specific areas to review the program, 
suggest research issues to be addressed, and provide a venue for policy 
discussions with the ITS community. In addition, there are specific 
tasks the U.S. DOT requests ITS America to perform that require access 
to their membership, or that they are uniquely qualified to provide. 
The U.S. DOT funding covers only these activities, and represents 35 
percent million of the $10 million annual budget of ITS America.
    The Mitretek Corp. provides the principal technical support 
function for the JPO. Mitretek's support can be categorized into in 7 
general areas: Program planning and assessment; the rural program; 
system architecture and deployment; communications and frequency 
spectrum; safety technology research for NHTSA; AHS program; and 
incorporating ITS into the transportation planning process.
    Mitretek is the technical arm of the JPO. As such, they review and/
or generate all of the technical guidance, analyses, and research 
activities in which the JPO is engaged. Due to the small size of the 
JPO, the staff are each managing several areas of the program, and also 
provide the policy development options and rationale for senior 
management. The Mitretek staff is the support that allows the existence 
of a small JPO staff to accomplish these tasks. In 1997, the JPO 
developed and produced separate technical documents that encompassed 
technical guidance, results of research and deployment, outreach, and 
informational documents for use by cities and states across the 
country. Mitretek drafted many of these documents and provides the only 
entity that maintains in depth technical expertise in all facets of the 
ITS Program.
    There are several small activities that provide support to the JPO 
in the areas of the development and testing of the ITS Management 
Information System, the computer network, the internet Web page, 
special support for conferences and workshops, and consultants for 
special issues that arise during the conduct of the program.
    The obligations for program support fall into three major 
categories; ITS America, Mitretek, and miscellaneous support 
activities. Following is a table which displays funding (both contract 
authority and GOE funding) actually utilized for program support in 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and projected for fiscal year 1998.

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                Activity                --------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS America............................        2.8        2.6        2.7
Mitretek...............................        5.5        5.6        5.3
Misc. Support..........................        2.9        1.5        2.0
                                        --------------------------------
      TOTAL............................       11.2        9.7       10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. For each of the contracts that have been signed to help 
develop standards, please provide extensive detail justifying these 
expenditures.
    Answer. Each of the standards development organizations (SDO's) 
were contracted with to support the development of interface standards 
as defined by the ITS National Architecture. Multiple SDO's were 
contracted with because of the various expertises required in this 
task. The following provides a brief description of the primary 
interest area of each SDO and the standards products they are working 
on.
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO).--Development of standards relating to roadside 
infrastructure.
  --Actuated Signal Controller Objects (NTCIP)
  --Automatic Vehicle Identification (NTCIP)
  --Class E Profile for Center to Center Communications (NTCIP)
  --Dynamic Message Signs (NTCIP)
  --Environmental Sensor Stations (NTCIP)
  --Highway Advisory Radio--HAR (NTCIP)
  --NTCIP Class B Profile
  --NTCIP Global Object Definitions NTCIP Overview
  --NTCIP Simple Transportation Management Framework Ramp Meters 
        (NTCIP)
  --NTCIP Transportation Sensor Systems
  --Vehicle Classification Devices (NTCIP)
  --Video Camera Control (NTCIP)
  --Weigh-in-Motion (NTCIP)
    American Society of Testing & Materials (ASTM).--Development of 
standards and test procedures for roadside dedicated short-range 
communications (DSRC) and equipment.
  --DSRC Data Link Layer
  --DSRC Physical Layer: 902-928 MHZ.
    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).--
Development of standards relating to electronics and communications 
message sets and protocols.
  --ITS Data Dictionaries Guidelines
  --Message Sets for DSRC for ETTM and CVO
  --Message Sets for Incident Management (EMS to TMC, E911)
  --Standard for Data Dictionaries for ITS
  --Standard for Message Set Template for ITS
  --Survey of Communications Technologies.
    Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).--Development of 
standards relating to traffic management and transportation planning 
systems.
  --External TMC Communications Scoping and Requirements Study
  --Advanced Traffic Management System Data Dictionary (TMDD)--Section 
        1 Links/Nodes)
  --Advanced Traffic Management System Data Dictionary (TMDD)--Section 
        2 (Incidents)
  --Advanced Traffic Management System Data Dictionary (TMDD)--Section 
        3 (Traffic Control)
  --Advanced Traffic Management System Data Dictionary (TMDD)--Section 
        4 (DMS/Video/etc.)
  --Advanced Transportation Controller (ATC) Application Program
  --Advanced Transportation Controller (ATC) Cabinet Specification
  --Advanced Transportation Controller (ATC) Functionality and 
        Interface
  --Message Set for External TMC Communication (MS/ETMCC)--Bundle A
  --Message Set for External TMC Communication (MS/ETMCC)--Bundle B
  --TCIP--Control Center Objects
  --TCIP--Common Public Transportation Objects
  --TCIP--Fare Collection Objects TCIP--Framework
  --TCIP--Incident Management Objects
  --TCIP--Onboard Objects
  --TCIP--Passenger Information Objects
  --TCIP--Scheduling/Runcutting Objects
  --TCIP--Spatial Representation Objects
  --TCIP--Traffic Management Objects.
    Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).--Development of standards 
for in-vehicle and traveler information systems.
  --Adaptive Cruise Control MMI and Operating Characteristics
  --Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) Core Message List
  --Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) Data Dictionary
  --ATIS Message Structure for High Speed FM Subcarrier
  --Forward Collision Warning: Operating Characteristics and User 
        Interface
  --In-Vehicle Message Priority
  --In-Vehicle Navigation System Communication Device Message Set
  --ISP-Vehicle Location Referencing Standard
  --ITS Data Bus Architecture Information
  --ITS Data Bus Conformance Testing Standard
  --ITS Data Bus Gateway Recommended Practice
  --ITS Data Bus Physical Layer Standard SAE J2366/1
  --ITS Data Bus Protocol--Application Layer
  --ITS Data Bus Protocol Standard--Link Layer
  --Location Referencing Standard--Field Test Analysis Information
  --Location Referencing Standard--Stakeholder's Workshop Information 
        Report
  --Mayday Industry Survey Information
  --National Location Referencing Information Report
  --Navigation & Route Guidance Function Accessibility while Driving
  --Navigation & Route Guidance Man-Machine Interface Transactions
  --On-Board Land Vehicle Mayday Reporting Interface
  --Visual Demand Management.
    The following organizations are not part of the original 5 SDO's 
contracted with but are still receiving resource support from U.S. DOT 
and are, therefore, included in this listing.
    American National Standards Institute (ANSI).--U.S. member of ISO 
with wide expertise in information technology standards.
  --Commercial Vehicle Operations--Credential Application
  --Commercial Vehicle Safety and Credentials Information Exchange
  --Commercial Vehicle Safety Reports.
    National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC).--Development of protocols 
and specifications for wide area communications.
  --High Speed FM Subcarrier Layer 1.
    To date, 15 standards have been produced with an additional 25 
expected to be at the balloting stage by the end of the year. Each of 
the SDO's are working on multiple activities and in many cases, the 
SDO's are working in partnership to provide the varied expertise 
necessary to support particular standards and to provide consistency 
among the various standards.
    Question. Have you designed a budget that only funds the most 
critical and cost beneficial investments? Please document your answer 
by providing evidence of the prioritization of investments.
    Answer. In the fiscal year 1999 budget request, the Department has 
focused its efforts on several key strategies intended to facilitate 
the integration of ITS components in metropolitan and commercial 
vehicle operating settings, as well as expand our understanding of ITS 
as applied to rural transportation. This supports the Department's 
vision for an ITS infrastructure that can provide a truly integrated, 
seamless, intermodal, surface transportation system for the traveling 
public whether they use private, public, or commercial vehicles.
    In addition, the Department has devoted a major portion of the ITS 
research budget to launching the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. The 
IVI is aimed at accelerating the development, availability, and use of 
driving assistance and control intervention systems to reduce motor 
vehicle crashes. By integrating driving assistance and motorist 
information functions, IVI systems will help drivers process 
information, make decisions and operate vehicles more safety and 
effectively. The deployment of basic IVI elements into the private 
auto, transit, and commercial vehicle fleets is estimated to decrease 
the number of annual crashes by 17 percent, saving both lives and the 
societal costs associated with the loss of these lives.
    To support these goals the Department has requested $100 million 
for the new Deployment Incentives Program and $150 million for research 
and technology transfer. The following briefly describe the 
Department's specific strategies and priorities and how they are 
reflected in the fiscal year 1999 budget request:
    Deployment Incentives Program ($100 million) will provide funding 
incentives to state and local officials to integrate ITS infrastructure 
(and not pay for individual components) in metropolitan areas, to 
expand the CVISN infrastructure into additional States and implement 
several rural ITS deployments.
    Research ($58.6 million) includes the launching of the Intelligent 
Vehicle Initiative and provides research into ongoing metropolitan and 
rural ITS applications such as weather information systems, fleet 
operations and maintenance schemes, and emergency services.
    Operational Tests ($28.1 million) is still a major thrust of the 
program and involves the field testing of key ITS technology 
components. This includes rural tests such as a Weather Field Test, 
Tourism and Traveler Information systems, Rural Infrastructure and 
Fleet Operations and Maintenance; Advanced Public Transportation 
Systems tests such as Hybrid Bank Proximity Cards and Asynchronous 
Dial-A-Ride transit services; and IVI tests including various Collision 
Avoidance systems, Integrated Transit Vehicles and the Intelligent 
Vehicle Heavy Truck.
    Mainstreaming ($21.5 million) emphasizes technical assistance to 
state and local partners in ITS applications. It includes training, 
particularly on ITS Architecture and Standards, technical guidance 
development, and the Peer-to-Peer program.
    Architecture and Standards ($19.4 million) reflects an urgency to 
advance ITS standards through the testing and regulatory processes, and 
the need to revise and deepen the National ITS Architecture in key 
areas such as Rural ITS.
    Evaluation and Program Assessment (12.4 million) includes providing 
independent evaluations for all operational tests, concludes the Model 
Deployment evaluations and collects outcome data for GPRA.
    Program Support ($10 million) includes support for ITS America, 
continuing program management and technical analysis from contractors 
and technical support to FTA for the Advanced Public Transportation 
Systems Program.
    Question. Please list the advanced traffic management systems now 
being developed in the R&D program, their expected completion date, 
amount of money invested in each to date, expected total project costs, 
and amount of cost sharing received and planned for the completion of 
each project.
    Answer. Advanced traffic management systems (ATMS) are a complex 
mixture of many traffic control technologies such as surveillance and 
detection, ramp metering, signal control, incident detection and 
management and driver information. The Federal Highway Administration 
has budgeted funds yearly for technology development, improvement of 
analysis tools, and ATMS research support facilities. The primary area 
of technology development is Adaptive Control Systems (formerly known 
as Real-Time, Traffic-Adaptive Control Systems, RT-TRACS). This is a 
signal control technology that adapts signal timings to respond to 
changing traffic patterns such as sharp, unexpected increases in 
traffic volumes and incident conditions.
    In fiscal year 1996, approximately $1,500,000 was spent on the 
development and testing of the Adaptive Control Systems' logic. In 
fiscal year 1997, $6,000,000 was obligated for field testing at four 
sites. Field testing of four Adaptive Control Systems is scheduled to 
be completed in June 1999. The costs and dates for each are shown in 
the following table. Subsequent to the completion of the field tests we 
will begin enhancements to expand the applications to include 
integration with legacy equipment and transit priority. Approximately 
$750,000 is budgeted for these enhancements in fiscal year 1999.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Amount
       Field Test Site Location         Expected Completion Date    Invested to   Expected Total  Amount of Cost
                                                                       Date        Project Cost      Share \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reston, VA...........................  06/98....................      $2,049,000      $2,149,000        $100,000
Seattle, WA..........................  06/99....................       1,525,000       1,525,000  ..............
Chicago, IL..........................  06/99....................       1,750,000       1,750,000  ..............
Tucson, AZ...........................  06/99....................         675,000       2,018,000       1,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include state and city staff time.

    Question. Please delineate all contract and GOE expenditures 
(active and planned) for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 related 
to ``outreach'' and ``mainstreaming'' activities. What amount is 
planned for fiscal year 1999? From which source of monies?
    Answer. The following table includes the requested data on 
``outreach'' and ``mainstreaming''.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MAINSTREAMING ACTIVITIES--FISCAL YEAR
                                1997-1999
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year--
                                ----------------------------------------
        Activity/project                          1998          1999
                                 1997 actual  estimate \1\  estimate \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINSTREAMING:
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE                 1,199       ( \2\ )       ( \2\ )
     OPERATIONS (CVO)..........
    ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSP.              450       ( \2\ )       ( \2\ )
     SYSTEMS (APTS)............
    TRAINING (Professional             3,072        10,000         9,000
     Capacity Building)........
    PLANNING/PROCESS GUIDANCE..        1,000         4,000         4,000
    DEPLOYMENT TECHNICAL               4,587         5,000         6,500
     ASSISTANCE................
    AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY.....  ...........         3,000         2,000
                                ----------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL..............       10,308        22,000        21,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: $193,000, $3 million, and $2.5 million in fiscal years 1997, 1998,
  and 1999 respectively, are from GOE funds; the remaining funding is
  from funds derived from contract authority.
 
\1\ Fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 amounts are those included in
  the Congressional Budgets for those years; they assume full funding,
  i.e., that we will eventually receive all funds requested for those
  fiscal years; final spending plans for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 will
  not be completely formulated until after final Congressional action is
  taken on appropriation acts and substantive legislation for those
  years.
\2\ No separate funding; merged into program categories below.

    Question. Are you planning or conducting any research or 
operational tests to use ITS as a means of helping to notify police of 
possible impaired or aggressive drivers? Is this an avenue worth 
pursuing during fiscal year 1999? Do you plan on spending any fiscal 
year 1999 funds on this technological path?
    Answer. We are already working in partnership with the Department 
of Maryland State Police (DMSP) to evaluate their ``Aggressive Driver 
Imaging (ADI) and Enforcement Project.'' Participants in the project 
include the Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, Maryland State Highway Administration, and U.S. 
Army Aberdeen Test Center. In addition, the Federal Highway 
Administration has provided funds for an independent evaluation of this 
deployment. An evaluation plan has already been developed and data are 
being collected. An evaluation report is expected within the next year.
    We do envision a great deal of future capabilities which will be 
made possible through advances in detection and flow monitoring 
technologies, including potential use in detecting impaired driving. 
For example, machine vision (essentially using software techniques to 
analyze vehicle movements, which are usually provided by roadside video 
cameras) could detect certain aberrant behavior such as weaving, 
speeding, following too closely, and other erratic vehicle maneuvers.
    We are actively working to improve detection capabilities, 
including use of machine vision techniques mentioned as an example in 
the previous question. As we improve our capabilities to extract 
information from deployed sensors, additional functions, such as 
impaired-driver detection, become feasible. We do not expect that this 
type of functionality will be available for some time, but we will 
raise this type of issue as part of our program planning discussions in 
coordination with appropriate U.S. DOT agencies such as FHWA and NHTSA. 
In addition to the technical feasibility, this application is hampered 
by substantial privacy issues. The privacy issues raised by this single 
application may hinder the overall deployment of ITS services. Our 
evaluation of the Maryland project includes an assessment of privacy 
issues.
    Question. Which Federally-funded ITS projects are behind schedule 
and why? Which are over their original costs?
    Answer. In the first quarter of 1995, the JPO commissioned a review 
of all ITS projects relative to their scope, schedule and budget. We 
found that with the exception of operational tests, ITS projects were 
being managed well within those parameters with changes well justified. 
However, virtually all operational tests had experienced schedule 
changes. Some were quite significant. Our analysis found that schedule 
changes were in large measure due to unrealistic expectations of all 
parties concerned in creating the original schedule. FHWA tended to 
assume that contracts could be signed within the same time frame as 
regular federal aid projects, when in fact we were often dealing with 
new partners (many of whom were private sector) and new procedures were 
often involved. Negotiations among the local partners took much longer 
than expected. Sometimes partners dropped out and had to be replaced. 
Once contracts and local agreements were signed, we encountered delays 
in negotiating evaluation plans, since some partners (especially those 
funded by earmarks) did not understand that the projects were designed 
to uncover new procedures and techniques; in short, lessons learned. 
These issues accounted for the vast majority of changes to the original 
schedule expectations.
    Subsequent to the early CY 1995 review, we have rebaselined the 
projects and the majority are progressing within the revised management 
parameters. Projects encountering turbulence identified in the review 
were reported in the CY 1997 response to this question. As new projects 
are undertaken, or as older ones enter into later phases, they continue 
to encounter schedule changes resulting from a variety of causes which 
should be expected in endeavors exploring new technology applications 
and, more significantly, changing practices in contracting and 
partnering. These challenges include technology problems, software 
development and installation deficiencies, environmental impacts on 
data collection and recurring encounters in the area of institutional 
issues.
    As new projects are undertaken, we have ensured that relevant 
lessons learned are incorporated in project selection criteria, 
schedule development and guidance provided to contract negotiators and 
partners.
    The following section identifies projects which have encountered 
schedule changes and the associated causes.
    The following projects have encountered delays associated with 
negotiation of agreements or memoranda of understanding among 
partnership members:
  --HERALD EN-ROUTE DRIVER ADVISORY SYSTEM VIA AM SUBCARRIER (CO & IA)
  --HOUSTON SMART COMMUTER (Houston, TX)
  --INTEGRATED RAMP METERING/ADAPTIVE SIGNAL CONTROL (Orange Co., CA)
    --Inability of public and private partners to reach consensus on 
            written agreement.
    --System-wide ramp metering failed to meet CALTRANS acceptance.
  --NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TRAVEL 
        INFORMATION SYSTEM (New York, NY)
  --SEATTLE WIDE-AREA INFORMATION FOR TRAVELERS (Seattle, WA)
    --(See below under evaluation)
  --SMART CALL BOX (San Diego, CA)
    Some projects have incurred schedule adjustments to accommodate 
demands of data collection and evaluation. The following fall in this 
category:
  --COLORADO MAYDAY SYSTEM (CO)
    --This project has experienced further turbulence due to the 
            jurisdiction in which a full test was to occur demanding 
            indemnification.
  --DELAWARE COUNTY RIDETRACKING (Delaware Co., PA)
  --IDAHO STORM WARNING SYSTEM (ID)
  --TRANSCAL (San Francisco, CA)
  --TRAVEL-AID (Seattle, WA)
  --SEATTLE WIDE-AREA INFORMATION FOR TRAVELERS (Seattle, WA)
    The following projects incurred schedule adjustments resulting from 
partnership members designated to provide key products deciding to 
withdraw from the project or modify their participation. These 
decisions necessitated searches for replacement partners, or rescoping 
project objectives with regard to evaluated technologies.
  --DIRECT (DETROIT, MI)--In-vehicle equipment provider withdrew.
  --GENESIS (Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN)--Withdrawal of Personal 
        Communications Device provider required redefinition of phases 
        and objectives.
    Some projects have encountered schedule delays attributable to 
multiple causes. Included in this category are the following:
  --NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE PROJECT (NJ)
    --Increase in scope to include weather surveillance.
    --Late start due to contract-related procedural difficulty.
  --SMART CORRIDOR (CA)
    --Data collection delayed.
    --State-imposed moratorium delayed bringing evaluation contractor 
            into the project by one year.
  --DETROIT, MI AREAWIDE DEPLOYMENT OF ATMS/ATIS (Detroit, MI)
    --Delay in securing FCC license approval for microwave frequency 
            transmissions.
    --Problems encountered in locating central towers.
  --MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (CA)
    --Contract and evaluation problems.
    --Weather delays (heavy moisture in CA during early 1998.)
  --ADVANCED RURAL TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION AND COORDINATION (MN)--
        Delays caused by long lead times in obtaining authorization to 
        start because of MOU negotiations. Technically unqualified 
        respondents to requests for proposals required repeating the 
        solicitation. Procurement-related delays associated with 
        processing data collection proposals. The combined effect of 
        these causes has required a revised procurement approach.
  --DENVER, CO HOGBACK MULTI-MODAL TRANSFER CENTER (Denver, CO)--
        Problems with partnership negotiation and community resistance 
        to use of proposed site.
  --DYNAMIC TRUCK SPEED WARNING FOR LONG DOWNGRADES (CO)--Data 
        collection delayed by road repairs/construction at detection 
        equipment locations.
  --IDAHO OUT OF SERVICE VERIFICATION OPERATIONAL TEST (ID)--
        Partnership problems causing delays in securing contractual 
        arrangements satisfactory to all partners and technological 
        challenges resulting from the need to tailor existing 
        technology to meet the needs of the project.
  --NEW JERSEY SIGNAL COMPUTERIZATION (NJ)
    --Increased funding.
    --Increase in scope of project.
    --Changes in requirements for bridge sign designs and signal 
            mounting.
  --NEW JERSEY POLICE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (NJ)--Changes in state 
        procurement process for equipment purchase.
  --SCOOT ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM (Anaheim, CA)
    --Delays in installation of City of Anaheim surveillance equipment.
    --Contract negotiation delays with the SCOOT contractor.
  --SPREAD SPECTRUM RADIO TRAFFIC INTERCONNECT (Los Angeles, CA)
    --Difficulty in acquiring necessary hardware resulting from 
            manufacturing problems has delayed equipment installation 
            and system evaluation.
    --Delays in contract award.
  --TRAVINFO (San Francisco, CA)
    --Contract/agreement delays.
    --Delays in operation start up due to system check out and testing 
            problems.
    --Expanded evaluation requirements.
  --TRANSCAL (CA) (also mentioned under evaluation)
    --Contract complications.
    --Project management problems.
    Some projects have experienced schedule delays from unique 
institutional or technological causes.
  --I-287 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (NY)
    --NY State Turnpike Authority Board of Directors delayed fund 
            matching.
  --CHICAGO SMART INTERMODAL SYSTEM (Chicago, IL)
    --Software problems.
  --SYRACUSE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (Syracuse, NY)
    --Construction delay due to utility relocation.
  --PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEM (PA)
    --Delay in securing tri-party toll agreement in accordance USC 
            Title 23.
  --DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT PERSONALIZED PUBLIC TRANSIT (Dallas, 
        TX)--Expanded review time by Dallas Area Rapid Transit 
        Authority.
  --ELECTRONIC ONE-STOP SHOPPING OPERATION TESTS (CA, AZ, NM, IA, MN, 
        NE, WI, KS, MO, IL, SD, CO, AR, TX)
    --Deficiencies in credentials software.
  --FAST-TRAC (MI) has been extended as a result of additional 
        earmarked funding generating increases in scope and duration.
  --MAGIC (NJ)--Changes in conduit trench design and redesign of 
        variable message sign structures.
  --MONTGOMERY COUNTY ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 
        (Montgomery Co., MD)
    --Software development/installation problems.
    --Processing of invoices.
  --NORTH SEATTLE ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (Seattle, WA)
    --Delays due to software development problems.
    --Further delay to accommodate integration with Seattle Model 
            Deployment Initiative.
  --SMART FLEXROUTE INTEGRATED REAL-TIME ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM (Northern 
        VA)--Delays due to problems with software installation.
  --WILMINGTON SMART DART (Wilmington, DE)--This project has 
        encountered significant challenges from the state of flux in 
        the ``smart card'' industry. Previously delayed by 
        institutional issues in banking laws affecting the MasterCard 
        ``smart cash'' card, SMART DART has been further impeded by 
        MasterCard's sale of ``SmartCash'' and acquisition of MONDEX. 
        MONDEX is an ``electronic purse'' system currently facing a 
        variety of start up delays. This project is currently being 
        reviewed for restructuring.
ITS Projects over their original costs are addressed below:
    Some projects have requested funds to cover the costs incurred by 
having to expand the depth of the operational test evaluations 
necessitated in meeting requirements specified by FHWA in the Mitre 
Evaluation Guidelines. In most cases, the guidelines had not been 
published prior to submission of the proposals. The following projects 
were affected:
  --SCOOT ADVANCED TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM (Anaheim, CA)
  --IDAHO STORM WARNING SYSTEM (ID)
  --TRANSCAL (CA)
  --TRAVINFO (CA)
  --SAN ANTONIO TRANSGUIDE --``Before and After'' study for Phase 2 
        added to project scope.
  --NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RENEWAL (PA)--Phase II of 
        project was expanded to include the OPERATION RESPOND system 
        and inter-modal movements at the Port of Los Angeles.
  --ELECTRONIC ONE-STOP SHOPPING OPERATIONAL TESTS--Software 
        development, testing and debugging.
    Other projects incurring cost adjustments include:
  --FAST-TRAC (MI)--Additional funding resulting from earmarked funds.
  --BALTIMORE SMART VEHICLE (MD)--Local transit operator decision using 
        Section 9 formula funds.
  --ATLANTA DRIVER ADVISORY SYSTEM (GA)--Evaluation-related.
  --TRAVTEK (FL)--FHWA requested more extensive evaluation 
        documentation.
  --EVALUATION SUPPORT FOR ITS OPERATIONAL TESTS (Various)--Additional 
        effort added to scope of work to evaluate and perform case 
        study of Atlanta ITS Olympic experience.
  --NATIONAL AVIATION TRANSPORTATION CENTER (NY)--Additional earmarked 
        funds.
  --SYRACUSE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM--Earmarked funding
  --INTELLIGENT CRUISE CONTROL FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST
    --Increase in scope to assess platooning.
    --Added sensors for increased maintainability and demonstration 
            tasks.
  --NEW YORK THRUWAY ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECTION AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
    --Earmark to expand scope of project.
  --NATIONAL AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION CENTER
    --Added earmarked funding.
  --FUEL CONSUMPTION AND EMISSION VALUES FOR TRAFFIC MODELS
    --Increase in scope.
  --REAL-TIME TRAFFIC ADAPTIVE SIGNAL CONTROL FOR ITS
    --Change in test site location.
    --Hardware and software problems.
  --DETROIT, MI AREAWIDE DEPLOYMENT OF ATMS/ATIS
    --Transfer from FAST-TRAC to fund Traffic Operations Center-to-
            Traffic Management Center communication.
  --VARIABLE DYNAMIC TEST VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT
    --Increase in scope.
    Question. During fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998, which ITS 
projects required additional Federal funding to be added to the amounts 
specified in their original cooperative agreements? Why were these 
funds added?
    Answer. Following is the requested; since only ``interim'' funding 
has been received for fiscal year 1998 all of the following data apply 
to fiscal year 1997.
Intelligent Cruise Control Field Operation Test
    $294,000 to cover cost of additional sensors for increased 
maintainability and added demonstration tasks.
    Funding increase of $79,940 to fund added tasks to study 
platooning.
New York Thruway Electronic Toll Collection and Traffic Management
    $3,010,000 added as a fiscal year 1997 earmark incorporated to 
expand electronic toll collection to commercial vehicles and create a 
joint customer system.
National Aviation and Transportation Center
    $1,539,250 additional earmarked funding.
Fuel Consumption and Emission Values for Traffic Models
    $400,000 increase. Additional funding from Office of Environment 
Planning to collect emission and fuel consumption data on 
malfunctioning vehicles.
Real-Time Traffic Adaptive Signal Control for ITS
    $850,000 increase.
    Funding increase was needed to cover costs associated with two 
developments: Contract extension due to change in field test site from 
Atlanta, GA to Reston, Va. Delays in obtaining workable and proven 2070 
traffic control hardware and software.
Detroit, MI Areawide Deployment of ATMS/ATIS
    Increase of $3,000,000 from FAST-TRAC funding to establish 
communications link between MIDOT's Intelligent Transportation Systems 
Center and the Road Commission for Oakland County's Traffic Operations 
Center to allow real-time information exchange between centers.
Evaluation of Automated Collision Notification Operational Test
    $97,213 added to cover an independent evaluation. Original project 
was completed within budget.
Variable Dynamic Test Vehicle Development
    $300,000 increase to fund development of a bread board for anti 
lock brakes, yaw control and anti roll bar systems.
TRAVINFO
    $2,572,000 added to cover extended evaluation period. $272,000 is 
accounted for by FHWA evaluation requirements not budgeted in initial 
phase.
Evaluation Support for ITS Operational Tests
    $670,000 added to accommodate increased scope of work to evaluate 
and perform case study of Atlanta ITS Olympic experience.
    Question. Please provide a detailed table showing any unobligated 
funds and funds that are obligated but not yet committee by year for 
any ITS projects specified in previous conference reports. What is the 
status of each of these projects?
    Answer. The following table lists projects earmarked by the 
Congress to be funded from ITS funds together with obligations and 
unobligated balances for each. With the exception of the $4.02 million 
of unobligated ISTEA contract authority shown for #44, Johnson City, 
Tennessee ($2.52 million of fiscal year 1995 funds and $1.5 million of 
fiscal year 1996 funds), all other unobligated balances are fiscal year 
1998 funds included in the General Operating Expenses account.

                                                              INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CONGRESSIONALLY EARMARKED PROJECTS
                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     FISCAL YEAR--                                     FISCAL YEAR--
 NO                PROJECT                          STATE            -------------------------------------------- RESCISSION ---------------------------------   TOTAL    OBLIGATIONS   UNOBLIG.
                                                                         1992       1993       1994       1995                   1996       1997       1998                               BAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1 ADVANTAGE I-75                    ...........................      1,000      1,400  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,400       2,400   .........
   2 Smart Corridor                    Ca.........................      1,000  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      1,000       1,000   .........
   3 ADVANCE (Chicago)                 Il.........................      7,500      4,550      6,000  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........     18,050      18,050   .........
   4 HELP/Crescent                     Various....................      2,000        525  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,525       2,525   .........
   5 DIRECT (Detroit)                  Mi.........................        500  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........        500         500   .........
   6 Smart Commuter (Houston)          Tx.........................      2,000  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,500      3,500       2,000       1,500
   7 Philadelphia                      Pa.........................      2,000  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,000       2,000   .........
   8 Miami                             Fl.........................      5,000  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      5,000       5,000   .........
   9 Guidestar                         Mn.........................     10,000      8,750      6,000      6,825  ..........      2,000      3,600      6,000     43,175      37,175       6,000
  10 Electric Vehicle                  Ca.........................      1,500  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      1,500       1,500   .........
  11 FAST-TRAC (Oakland County)        Mi.........................     10,000     10,500     20,000     15,000  ..........  .........  .........  .........     55,500      55,500   .........
  12 TRANSCOM                          NJ/NY......................      3,000      2,400      2,200      2,625  ..........      1,500      2,250  .........     13,975      13,975   .........
  13 MAGIC                             NJ/NY......................      4,000      6,280  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........     10,280      10,280   .........
  14 Toll Road ETTM                    NJ.........................     25,000      7,000      3,000  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........     35,000      35,000   .........
  15 Integrated Corridor Mgmt          NJ/Pa......................      6,000  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      6,000       6,000   .........
  16 Signal Computerization            NJ.........................      6,000      7,000  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........     13,000      13,000   .........
  17 Southern State Parkway            NY.........................     20,000     14,000  .........  .........     -13,600  .........  .........  .........     20,400      20,400   .........
  18 Spellman Parkway                  Md.........................        300  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........        300         300   .........
  19 Maryland Arterials                Md.........................      2,200  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,200       2,200   .........
  20 Northeast Corridor                Various....................  .........     10,500      1,000      7,500  ..........      3,500  .........      1,000     23,500      22,500       1,000
  21 Gary Corridor                     Various....................  .........      1,400      2,500  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      3,900       3,900   .........
  22 Houston Corridor                  Tx.........................  .........      3,105      2,000      2,250  ..........      2,200      2,000  .........     11,555      11,555   .........
  23 Anaheim Corridor                  Ca.........................  .........      4,200  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      4,200       4,200   .........
  24 Smart Corridor (Los Angeles)      Ca.........................  .........      4,900  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      4,900       4,900   .........
  25 Chicago Corridor                  IL.........................  .........        500  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........        500         500   .........
  26 Milwaukee Corridor                Wi.........................  .........        500  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      5,500      6,000         500       5,500
  27 San Diego                         Ca.........................  .........      2,100      5,000  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      7,100       7,100   .........
  28 Miami/Ft. Lauderdale              Fl.........................  .........      2,240  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,240       2,240   .........
  29 Seattle                           Wa.........................  .........      3,500      1,500  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      5,000       5,000   .........
  30 Detroit                           Mi.........................  .........        700  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........        700         700   .........
  31 TravTek (Orlando)                 Fl.........................  .........        500  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........        500         500   .........
  32 I-80 (CVO)                        Various....................  .........        700  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........        700         700   .........
  33 Sutter County                     Ca.........................  .........      1,750  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      1,750       1,750   .........
  34 Fairfax County                    Va.........................  .........      5,250  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      5,250       5,250   .........
  35 Police Communications Center      NJ.........................  .........      3,500  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      3,500       3,500   .........
  36 New York State Thruway            NY.........................  .........      5,250      6,400  .........  ..........      1,500      3,000  .........     16,150      16,150   .........
  37 George Mason University (GOE      Va.........................  .........      1,600  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      1,600       1,600   .........
      Funding)
  38 Humphrey Institute (GOE Funding)  Mn.........................  .........        760  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........        760         760   .........
  39 Sandia Labs                       NM.........................  .........  .........      2,000  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,000       2,000   .........
  40 Bronx/Northern Manhattan ATMS     NY.........................  .........  .........      2,400      2,250  ..........  .........  .........  .........      4,650       4,650   .........
  41 Buffalo/Niagara Falls ATMS        NY.........................  .........  .........      2,000  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,000       2,000   .........
  42 CARAT (Charlotte)                 NC.........................  .........  .........      6,000      4,500  ..........  .........  .........  .........     10,500      10,500   .........
  43 George Mason University           Va.........................  .........  .........      2,000  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,000       2,000   .........
  44 Johnson City                      Tn.........................  .........  .........      2,500      3,750  ..........      1,500  .........  .........      7,750       3,730       4,020
  45 Montgomery County                 Md.........................  .........  .........      1,000  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      1,000       1,000   .........
  46 Southeast Michigan (SMART)        Mi.........................  .........  .........      4,500      7,500  ..........  .........  .........  .........     12,000      12,000   .........
  47 Smart Bus--State Rt. 9            NJ.........................  .........  .........      1,500  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      1,500       1,500   .........
  48 Iowa CVO (GOE Funding)            Ia.........................  .........  .........      2,000  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,000       2,000   .........
  49 Humphrey Institute (GOE Funding)  Mn.........................  .........  .........        950  .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........        950         950   .........
  50 Lower Hudson Valley               NY.........................  .........  .........  .........      1,500  ..........  .........  .........  .........      1,500       1,500   .........
  51 Adv. Transp. Weather Info.        ND.........................  .........  .........  .........        750  ..........      1,000      1,000        775      3,525       2,750         775
      Sys.(U of ND)
  52 Hazardous Materials Transp.       Pa?........................  .........  .........  .........      1,500  ..........      2,500      2,000      1,000      7,000       6,000       1,000
      Safety (NIER)
  53 Santa Teresa Border Crossing      NM.........................  .........  .........  .........      1,680  ..........        900  .........      1,000      3,580       2,580       1,000
  54 Syracuse Congestion Mgmt          NY.........................  .........  .........  .........      1,500  ..........      1,500  .........      1,000      4,000       3,000       1,000
  55 Brooklyn/Bronx/Queens             NY.........................  .........  .........  .........      3,750  ..........  .........  .........  .........      3,750       3,750   .........
      Signalization
  56 Nat'l. Transp. Ctr.               NY.........................  .........  .........  .........      1,870  ..........      2,000      2,500  .........      6,370       6,370   .........
      (Oakdale)(Dowling Coll.)
  57 Adv. Railroad/Hwy. Crossings      NY.........................  .........  .........  .........      2,625  ..........      1,250      2,000  .........      5,875       5,875   .........
  58 New Jersey Turnpike               NJ.........................  .........  .........  .........      2,625  ..........  .........  .........  .........      2,625       2,625   .........
  59 Green Light CVO Project           Or.........................  .........  .........  .........      6,000  ..........      7,000      7,000  .........     20,000      20,000   .........
  60 Paralympiad                       Ga.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000       1,000   .........
  61 I-10 (Mobile) (Fog Detection      Al.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........      3,000      2,000  .........      5,000       5,000   .........
      System)
  62 Capitol Beltway                   Md/Va......................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........      4,000  .........  .........      4,000       4,000   .........
  63 Texas Transp. Inst. (Texas A&M)   Tx.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........        600        600      1,000      2,200       1,200       1,000
  64 Western Transp. Inst. (Montana    Mt.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........      1,000  .........      1,000      2,000       1,000       1,000
      State Univ.)
  65 I-675/SR844/Col. Glenn            Oh.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000       1,000   .........
      (Fairborn)
  66 Salt Lake City                    Ut.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........      2,000      5,000      3,500     10,500       7,000       3,500
  67 Inglewood                         Ca.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........      1,000        500      1,500       1,000         500
  68 Mobile Adv. Traf. Mgmt. Sys.      Al.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000       1,000   .........
      (Montgomery)
  69 Traffic Guidance System           Tn.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........      1,000        750      1,750       1,000         750
      (Nashville)
  70 Operation Respond                 Md.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........      1,000  .........      1,000       1,000   .........
  71 Pennsylvania Turnpike             Pa.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........      3,000      6,000      9,000       3,000       6,000
  72 Nat'l. Capitol Region Congest.    Various....................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........      3,500      6,000      9,500       3,500       6,000
      Mitigation
  73 National Advanced Driver          Ia.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........     14,000  .........     14,000      14,000   .........
      Simulator (NADS)
  74 Kansas City Region                Ks/Mo......................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........      2,500      1,000      3,500       2,500       1,000
  75 US/Canada CVO                     Wa.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500       1,500   .........
  76 Rochester Congestion Management   NY.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........      1,500  .........      1,500       1,500   .........
  77 Urban Transp. Saf. Sys. Ctr.      Pa.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........        500        250        750         500         250
      (Drexel Univ., Phila.)
  78 Arizona Nat'l. Ctr. for Traffic   Az.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  ...........      1,000
      & Logistics
  79 CVO, I-5 California               Ca.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,500      1,500  ...........      1,500
  80 Cumberland Gap Tunnel             Ky.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,550      1,550  ...........      1,550
  81 Dade County Expressway, Fla.      Fl.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  ...........      1,000
      Toll Collect. Sys
  82 Franklin County Ma. Traveler      Ma.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........        875        875  ...........        875
      Info. Sys
  83 I-90/I-94 Rural ITS Corridor      Wi.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,700      1,700  ...........      1,700
  84 Louisiana I-55, I-10 & 610 ITS    La.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      5,500      5,500  ...........      5,500
      Systems
  85 Market St. & Pa. Convention Ctr.  Pa.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........        325        325  ...........        325
      Info. Ctr
  86 I-90 Connector, Rennselaer        NY.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,250      1,250  ...........      1,250
      County, NY
  87 I-275, St. Petersburg, Fla        Fl.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  ...........      1,000
  88 Rt. 236/I-495, Northern Va. ITS   Va.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........        500        500  ...........        500
      System
  89 Southeast Michigan Now & Ice      Mi.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,150      1,150  ...........      1,150
      Mgmt. (SEMSIS)
  90 Reno ITS                          Nv.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,875      1,875  ...........      1,875
  91 Barboursville/Ona. Traffic        Wv.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      8,000      8,000  ...........      8,000
      Management
  92 North Dakota State Univ. Adv.     ND.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........        600        600  ...........        600
      Traffic Anal. Ctr
  93 Sullivan Co., NY Emergency        NY.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  ...........      1,000
      Weather System
  94 New York City toll plaza          NY.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,100      1,100  ...........      1,100
      scanners
  95 Cleveland transit maintenance     Oh.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  ...........      1,000
      environ. Proj
  96 Op. Respond Haz. Mat. Response    Tx.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  ...........      1,000
      Software
  97 Wash. State Radio Comm.           Wa.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........        750        750  ...........        750
      Emergency Call Boxes
  98 Wash. State Roadway Weather       Wa.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,250      1,250  ...........      1,250
      Info. System
  99 Colo. I-25 Truck Safety           Co.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      9,000      9,000  ...........      9,000
      Improvements
 100 Tuscaloosa Traffic Integration    Al.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      2,200      2,200  ...........      2,200
      and Flow Control
 101 Alaska Cold Weather ITS Sensing   Ak.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........  .........      1,000      1,000  ...........      1,000
                                      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           TOTALS                      ...........................    109,000    115,360     82,450     76,000     -13,600     40,950     63,450     83,900    557,510     469,590      87,920
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. As requested on page 331 of the budget submittal, why is 
it necessary to spend money to investigate alternative approaches to 
setting mobility-based performance goals?
    Answer. Performance goal setting is stimulated by the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which promotes running government 
more like private enterprise. GPRA acknowledges that such a transition 
takes time and accommodates a phase-in over several years. Achieving 
GPRA goals in transportation is impeded more than for other Federal 
agencies because FHWA and FTA must motivate its public sector partners 
at State, transit authority, and Metropolitan Planning Organization 
levels to buy into the same GPRA goals. Values behind goal setting 
include better accountability and the use of feedback to adjust 
investment strategies. Alternative approaches to goal setting for 
achieving mobility can be top-down from management or bottom-up based 
on empirical data histories of improvements that might be expected. 
There are also alternative approaches for collecting data necessary to 
provide feedback to managers, e.g., implementing new data collection or 
trying to use or modify existing data collection procedures. Because 
the GPRA approach is still new to many, there are no clear cut 
approaches that provide the most cost effective way at goal setting. It 
is therefore necessary to spend money to investigate alternative 
approaches that would lead to ways to save money in the future.
    Question. Please break down on a contract by contract basis the 
specific activities and associated amounts allocated in fiscal year 
1996, fiscal year 1997, and thus far in fiscal year 1998 to conduct ITS 
policy assessments.
    Answer. The following information.
ITS Program Assessment Support Contract DTFH61-96-C-00098
    Fiscal year 1996 funds in the amount of $40,670 were allocated to 
support the Joint Program Office in defining critical procurement 
issues associated with deploying, operating, and maintaining ITS 
systems under regulations used for Federal Aid Projects. Methods to 
overcome the critical issues were to be defined and then reviewed in 
light of comments from appropriate FHWA procurement specialists. No 
additional funds were obligated to this contract for work in either 
fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998.
ITS Program Assessment Support Contract DTFH61-96-C-00077
    Fiscal year 1996 funds in the amount of $19,170 were assigned to 
develop supporting materials and documents to assist U.S. DOT's Joint 
Programs Office (JPO) in the Congressional hearings on the proposed 
fiscal 1998 budget for ITS. The goal was to undertake the necessary 
research to develop comparisons of the investments required for the ITS 
Program and other programs that share similar characteristics, and 
communicate the findings in an effective manner.
    Fiscal year 1997 funds in the amount of $19,170 were assigned to 
develop a document to assist the U.S. DOT Joint Program Office in 
creating a program strategy to meet their Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities (HBCU's) and other Minority Institutions of Higher 
Education (MIHE's) participation goals, with particular information 
regarding student internship programs.
    No funds have been obligated thus far in fiscal year 1998 for ITS 
policy assessment under this contract.
Contract with ITS America
    No funds were expended in fiscal year 1996 for ITS policy 
assessment with this contract. In fiscal year 1997, $400,000 were 
obligated to this contract to support a macro-economic analysis of the 
benefits and costs of the ITS program. In fiscal year 1997, $50,000 
were allocated to this contract to support a workshop on the topic of 
ITS as A Data Resource, to investigate policy implications for adding a 
new user service to the ITS architecture. No fiscal year 1998 funds 
have been allocated to this contract thus far for ITS policy assessment 
purposes.
Contract with John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
    The U.S. Department of Transportation's John A. Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, MA received $930,000 in 
funding in fiscal year 1996, $2,157,000 in funding in fiscal year 1997, 
and $100,000 in funding in fiscal year 1998 (to date) to support the 
ITS Joint Program Office in a variety of ITS policy analysis areas. A 
significant portion of this funding has been spent preparing reports 
requested by the Congress. It is estimated that costs for the annual 
ITS Program report to the Congress alone is between $800 thousand and 
$1 million.
    Funding has been used to prepare issue papers and organize a 
conference on telecommunication's issues related to ITS deployment 
decision-making, a white paper on the role of ITS in freight 
intermodalism, and to continue the examination of the development of 
the ITS market and the emergence of ITS businesses. The Volpe Center 
provided background information and policy position papers supporting 
the ITS program as needed on topics related to institutional issues 
impeding the successful deployment of ITS. The Volpe Center also 
continued work assessing issues impeding the deployment of ITS in 
metropolitan areas and states.
    In fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, the Volpe Center also 
began to support the evaluation of the Metropolitan Model Deployment 
Initiative and CVISN sites. The Volpe Center has prepared reports on 
the institutional issues and benefits associated with the deployments, 
is providing the technical lead and staff support in the assessment of 
customer satisfaction and the benefits and costs of the deployments, 
and is examining the business models being followed by the private 
sector participants.
    Question. Please provide an empirical basis justifying the need for 
the $3.7 million requested for ITS policy assessment studies.
    Answer. The $3.7 million requested for fiscal year 1999 includes 
the following efforts: congressional reporting and policy analyses by 
the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center at levels 
consistent with current outlays; new policy assessments on the effect 
of the requirement to link federal funding to architecture conformance 
and standards conformance; policy development and assessment for 
deployment of a rural ITS infrastructure to include definition of the 
infrastructure and stakeholder feedback as to the best ways to 
integrate the rural infrastructure with the ITS architecture.
    Congressional report requirements consume a significant portion of 
the policy assessment resources. It is estimated that the cost of the 
annual report to Congress on the ITS program is between $800,000 and $1 
million. It is anticipated that additional reporting requirements will 
be included as part of the reauthorization.
    A new ITS user service for archived data users will also be 
forthcoming and will require a series of stakeholder meetings with 
architecture experts. This new service will include the broadest set of 
stakeholders in ITS architecture to date: highway transportation 
planners from state DOT's and metropolitan planning organizations; 
transit planners; traffic center operators; transportation system 
operators and maintainers; commercial vehicle and intermodal freight 
operators and planners; and, transportation safety officials. The 
potential for ITS to become a cost effective method for automatically 
obtaining certain data that could feed the Highway Performance 
Monitoring System (HPMS) is becoming realized as a possibility. Policy 
studies are needed to investigate how ITS can play a role in HPMS and 
in economic modeling of alternative investment strategies for reports 
to Congress.
    Question. What is the status of each of the projects in the ITS 
program related to highway/rail grade crossings? For each project, 
please list accomplishments to date, purposes and objectives, amount 
obligated, amount planned to be spent, amount unobligated, scope and 
nature of the project, and expected date of completion. What has been 
achieved with past ITS investments in this area?
    Answer. There are two ITS investments involving highway/rail 
intersections. Both have been earmarked projects. The first project 
involves the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS), managed by Federal 
Railroad Administration, and tested in Pueblo Colorado.
    Section 1072 of the 1991 ISTEA required the testing of VPAS and 
comparable systems to determine their feasibility for use by priority 
vehicles as an effective highway-rail grade crossing safety device. 
VPAS is an in-vehicle device, mounted to the dashboard, that provides 
both an audible and visual warning to the driver of a priority vehicle 
(ambulance, school bus, police car, etc) that a train is approaching, 
or in, a grade crossing.
    Total funding available to conduct this testing was $1 million, 
with $600,000 transferred from FHWA to FRA in fiscal year 1994 and 
$400,000 in fiscal year 1995.
    Reliability testing of the prototype systems was conducted at the 
Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado. The 
prototypes were tested for their maximum range, reliability, ease of 
installation, etc. The reliability testing has been completed and the 
Final Test Report has been submitted. The Evaluation Report final draft 
should be finished by the end of March, 1998.
    Based on (1) the conclusions of the evaluation report, (2) a 
comparison of the tested systems with the recently developed ITS User 
Service #30 element of the National ITS Architecture, (3) the final 
accounting of costs for the testing and evaluation work now being 
completed, and (4) the results of ongoing independent demonstrations of 
still other concepts in Minnesota and Illinois, a decision will be made 
whether or not to conduct further reliability or revenue-service 
testing of the prototype systems addressed in this project.
    Three systems were tested:
    3-point system--by SmartStops, Inc.--The original concept had a 
transceiver on the locomotive, one at the grade crossing and a receiver 
in the priority vehicle. The locomotive-mounted transceiver would 
broadcast continuously, and as it approached a grade crossing the 
transceiver at the crossing would be activated, broadcasting a signal 
to any equipped priority vehicles in the area and also returning a 
message to the locomotive that the crossing system had been activated. 
This system worked reasonably well, although would require some 
modifications to reduce its activation range, temperature response, and 
so on, before any further testing or development were to occur. 
However, the manufacturer determined, after discussions with several 
railroads, that no railroad would allow the mounting of a transmitter 
for this purpose on their locomotives. As a result, they would have to 
modify their concept to use a wayside detector. They are in the process 
of modifying their system now, and would have to return to TTC to do 
basic reliability testing, should FRA determine that such further 
testing is advisable.
    1-point system by EARS.--This system is a receiver mounted in the 
priority vehicle which is activated by the sound of the train horn. It 
is an outgrowth of a system used to help hearing-impaired drivers hear 
emergency sirens. However, this system did not perform well. It 
suffered from a lack of range and several other problems that lead to a 
large number of false alarms.
    1-point system by Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems.--This system is a 
receiver mounted in the priority vehicle that is activated by the 
train's Front/Rear End Device (FRED). The FRED is used to monitor air 
brake pressure and continuously updates via radio an indicator in the 
locomotive cab. This device is used on more than 85 percent of the 
freight trains in the country and has an FRA-approved usage and 
maintenance protocol. This system worked very well, although it had an 
excessive range problem, but the range should be reducible to minimize 
false alarms. However, the concept is not compatible with the ITS User 
Service #30. This system would need to be modified for purposes of any 
further testing.
    A fourth system selected for testing, a 2-point system which used a 
transmitter on the locomotive and a receiver in the priority vehicle, 
was dropped from consideration because of the failure of the 
manufacturer, RF Solutions, to supply a prototype for testing.
    The second project includes the development of a prototype 
integrated warning system for use at railroad/highway grade crossings. 
The purpose is to perform a demonstration of an integrated uniform time 
warning/ITS system on an electrified railroad. The demonstration will 
employ an Intelligent Grade Crossing System (IGC), working in concert 
with an Intelligent Traffic System (ITS) and a modified radio 
communications-based Automatic Train Control (ATC) system. It is being 
conducted by the New York State DOT under an earmark of $8,625,000 with 
a 20 percent match provided by General Railway Signal, the supplier of 
the train control system. The design of the overall system and hardware 
is nearing completion, software development is proceeding, and the 
system is scheduled for an initial demonstration in September, 1998. 
The system will then be field tested in ``shadow mode,'' where the 
gates operate under the existing track circuits and a computer operates 
the new hardware to compare how traffic delays would be reduced were 
the new hardware controlling the gates. The ``shadow'' field testing 
and final evaluation of the system is expected to be complete by the 
first quarter in 2000.
    The fiscal year 1998 funds requested in the Administrations budget, 
have not been allocated to any Highway/Rail grade crossing projects. 
The activities planned for fiscal year 1998 are primarily focused on 
the evaluation of GPS, full barrier systems and A 2nd train coming. A 
team within USDOT is now reviewing the earmarked projects of VPAS and 
LIRR to develop an ITS evaluation plan, to review lessons learned and 
to determine the next steps. Use of the VPAS technology is expected to 
be applied to other sites, but those sites have not been determined to 
date.
    Since the contract authority funding requested in fiscal year 1998 
was delayed, the time is being used to coordinate the project 
evaluations. When funding is available the evaluations are expected to 
continue as planned. In fiscal year 1999, the expectations are to 
establish projects for integrating railroad technology with ATMS, and 
for traffic signal preemption at crossings as well as health 
monitoring. The three projects included in the budget request are 
expected to cost $2.5 million.
    Question. Please specify on a contract-by-contract basis how the 
fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997 and the fiscal year 1998 program 
support monies were used or will be used. Please indicate the scope, 
nature, and amount of each contract.
    Answer. There are two principal contractors that support the JPO 
staff; ITS America, and the Mitretek Corp. ITS America is the official 
advisory committee to the U.S. DOT on the ITS program, and organizes 
and staffs the national committees that address each major facet of the 
program. These committees are one of the formal forums to bring 
together technical expertise in specific areas to review the program, 
suggest research issues to be addressed, and provide a venue for policy 
discussions with the ITS community. In addition, there are specific 
tasks the U.S. DOT requests ITS America to perform that require access 
to their membership, or that they are uniquely qualified to provide. 
The U.S. DOT funding covers only these activities, and represents 35 
percent of the $10 million annual budget of ITS America.
    The Mitretek Corp. provides the principal technical support 
function for the JPO. Mitretek's support can be categorized into in 7 
general areas: Program planning and assessment; the rural program; 
system architecture and deployment; communications and frequency 
spectrum; safety technology research for NHTSA; AHS program; and 
incorporating ITS into the transportation planning process.
    Mitretek is the technical arm of the JPO. As such, they review and/
or generate all of the technical guidance, analyses, and research 
activities in which the JPO is engaged. Most of the small JPO staff are 
each managing several areas of the program, and also provide the policy 
development options and rationale for senior management. The Mitretek 
staff is the support that allows the existence of a small JPO staff to 
accomplish these tasks. In 1997, the JPO developed and produced 
separate technical documents that encompassed technical guidance, 
results of research and deployment, outreach, and informational 
documents for use by cities and states across the country. Mitretek 
drafted many of these documents and provides the only entity that 
maintains in depth technical expertise in all facets of the ITS 
Program.
    There are several small activities that provide support to the JPO 
in the areas of the development and testing of the ITS Management 
Information System, the computer network, the Internet Web page, 
special support for conferences and workshops, and consultants for 
special issues that arise during the conduct of the program.
    The obligations for program support fall into three major 
categories; ITS America, Mitretek, and miscellaneous support 
activities. Following is a table which displays funding (both contract 
authority and GOE funding) actually utilized for program support in 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and projected for fiscal year 1998.

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                Activity                --------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS America............................        2.8        2.6        2.7
Mitretek...............................        5.5        5.6        5.3
Misc. Support..........................        2.9        1.5        2.0
                                        --------------------------------
      TOTAL............................       11.2        9.7       10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Why is it essential to use scarce ITS funds ``to 
accelerate the institution of ITS across the surface transportation 
modal administrations within the U.S. Department of Transportation?''
    Answer. The surface transportation system in the U.S. is undergoing 
large changes from building an interstate system to operating and 
maintaining it. The sooner more agencies understand the benefits of ITS 
for improving operations and maintenance and incorporate consideration 
of ITS into everyday routines, the faster these benefits can be 
realized by all traveling and non-traveling taxpayers.
                  commercial vehicle operations (cvo)
    Question. Please provide a chart showing the amount spent on all 
CVO activities for each of the following fiscal years: 1995, 1996, 
1997, and 1998 (assuming full authorization of appropriated amount), 
and 1999 (proposed). Please be certain that the table includes specific 
amounts for training, CVISN research, CVISN deployment, border 
projects, and amounts allocated to develop various information systems 
used by OMC.
    Answer. The following table shows ITS funding obligated for CVO 
activities in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. This table also 
includes estimated fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 ITS funding 
projected to be allocated to CVO activities assuming full funding of 
the ITS program as included in FHWA's fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 
1999 budget respectively.

                    INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED ITS FUNDS FOR CVO
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             FISCAL YEAR--
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1995        1996        1997        1998        1999
                                                        ACTUAL      ACTUAL      ACTUAL     ESTIMATE    ESTIMATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................      10,806      14,260       6,891       7,500       9,000
    TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH (FORMERLY AVCIS/     ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
     AHS)...........................................
    ENABLING........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    RURAL RESEARCH..................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    OTHER RESEARCH..................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS...................      10,806      14,260       6,891       7,500       8,000
        Safety Systems Deployment Support...........  ..........  ..........  ..........       7,100       7,200
        Advances in Roadside Inspection Technol-      ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         450
         ogy........................................
        Automated Compliance Review.................         500  ..........         500         400         350
        Safer MCSAP Sites...........................  ..........  ..........       5,100  ..........  ..........
        Driver Monitoring and Industry Research and   ..........  ..........         455  ..........  ..........
         State Research.............................
        On-Board Safety Diagnostics/Monitoring......         999         900         686  ..........  ..........
        Dedicated Short Range Communications........  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  ..........
        SAFER/200 MCSAP Sites.......................       3,979       4,660  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Electronic Credentials, Identifiers & Cross   ..........         800  ..........  ..........  ..........
         Reference..................................
        Intermodal Mobility.........................         150         150  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Mexican Driver License......................  ..........         300  ..........  ..........  ..........
        CVISN.......................................  ..........       7,200  ..........  ..........  ..........
        International Operations Concept/Design.....  ..........         250  ..........  ..........  ..........
        CVO System Design...........................       1,900  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Electronic Clearance........................         850  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Automated Roadside Inspection...............       1,228  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Hazardous Materials.........................         350  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Commercial Vehicle Info. System.............         850  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH.  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    INTERMODAL FREIGHT SUMMARY......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS...................................      10,153       7,257      13,483       2,000       4,000
    APTS............................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    INTELLIGENT VEHICLE (CRASH AVOIDANCE IN  PY)....  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000
        Integrated Transit Vehicle..................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Rear End Collision Avoidance Systems........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Road Departure Crash Avoidance Systems......  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Intelligent Vehicle Heavy Truck.............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000
    RURAL...........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    CVO.............................................      10,153       7,257      13,483       2,000  ..........
        On-board Diagnostics........................  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........
        CVISN & Prototype Testing...................  ..........  ..........       9,218  ..........  ..........
        Border Crossings............................  ..........  ..........       3,150  ..........  ..........
        CVO Corridors...............................  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
        One Stop Shopping...........................         157  ..........         115  ..........  ..........
        Advantage I-75..............................  ..........       1,024  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Otay Mesa Border Crossing...................         916       1,238  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Santa Teresa Border Crossing................       1,680         900  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Model Deployment............................  ..........       4,095  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Northern Border Crossing....................       3,200  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Operational Test Evaluation.................         400  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Nogales, Arizona Border Crossing............       2,300  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Hazardous Material Transportation Safety....       1,500  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
EVALUATION/PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT................  ..........  ..........  ..........         350  ..........
    EVALUATIONS.....................................  ..........  ..........  ..........         350  ..........
        Metropolitan Model Deployment...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        CVISN Model Deployment......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Field Operation Tests Cross-Cutting Analy-    ..........  ..........  ..........         350  ..........
         ses........................................
        Rural Field Operational Tests...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Intelligent Vehicle Operational Tests.......  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Intermodal Freight Evaluation...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        APTS Field Operational Tests................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Highway-Rail Field Operational Tests........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    ITS PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT...................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS..........................  ..........         500         500         500         500
    ARCHITECTURE....................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    STANDARDS.......................................  ..........         500         500         500         500
        Research and Development....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
            In-vehicle ICON Standards...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
            Standardization of ATIS Information       ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
             Across Media...........................
        Standards Development Activities............  ..........         500         500         500         500
            Infrastructure and Safety...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
            Standards Support for CVO...............  ..........         500         500         500         500
            Transit.................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
            Federal Rulemaking Support..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        User Implementation Guides..................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        International Activity......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Testing and Integration.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Data Registration...........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
MAINSTREAMING.......................................       1,203       3,212       2,199       2,750       2,875
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE............................       1,103       3,212       1,199       1,500       1,700
        Information and Technology Transfer.........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Transit Technical Assistance................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Commercial Vehicle Operations...............       1,103       3,212       1,199       1,500       1,700
            State, Regional, Natl. Forums/Technical   ..........       2,285  ..........       1,000       1,060
             Guidance...............................
            Border Technical Guidance...............  ..........         600  ..........         250         500
            Outreach................................         349  ..........       1,199         250         140
            Deployment Technical Assistance.........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
            Institutional Issues....................         754  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
            Exhibits, Videos, Seminars, etc.........  ..........         327  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Technical Assistance for Rural ITS Plan-      ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
         ning.......................................
    PLANNING/POLICY.................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    TRAINING........................................         100  ..........       1,000       1,250       1,000
        National ITS Training Initiative............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        CVO Training................................         100  ..........       1,000       1,250       1,000
        Standards Training/Technology Transfer......  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
        FTA Professional Capacity Building..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         175
        ITI Awareness Activities....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........          75
        Publications, Exhibits, etc.................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         100
CORRIDORS...........................................       6,000       9,500      11,500  ..........  ..........
        Operation Respond (Maryland)................  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........
        Haz. Materials Intermodal Monitoring Sys.     ..........       2,500       2,000  ..........  ..........
         (NIER).....................................
        Green Light CVO Proj. (Oregon)..............       6,000       7,000       7,000  ..........  ..........
        US/Canada CVO...............................  ..........  ..........       1,500  ..........  ..........
PROGRAM SUPPORT.....................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM...................  ..........  ..........  ..........      25,000      25,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL...................................      28,162      34,729      34,573      38,100      41,375
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Would it be worthwhile to establish a third ``mailbox'' 
project? Would the southeastern States be an acceptable location for 
such an initiative?
    Answer. It is not as worthwhile to expand into a third ``mailbox'' 
project as it is to expand regionally with the current states, and use 
the same mailbox for that expansion. The SAFER data mailbox project 
provides the opportunity for States to use state-of-the-art technology 
to provide State safety and enforcement officials at the roadside 
access to near real-time inspection information on commercial vehicles 
and their drivers that have been previously cited for out-of-service 
violations. Delaware, as well as the States of Maryland, New Jersey, 
New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, are among the 
first group of States to pilot test the SAFER data mailbox project. In 
addition, four western States (Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming) 
along a continuous corridor of I-80 have received funds to improve data 
communications for their roadside inspectors and use the ASPEN software 
to upload and retrieve inspection information from the mailbox.
    All of these States are using the ASPEN software and are improving 
``land'' communications (telephone) at fixed facilities or wireless 
communications (radio or cellular) for mobile inspectors. These 
communications will enable ASPEN to exchange data with SAFER and the 
data mailbox such that inspectors will be able to retrieve both 
carrier-level safety data and vehicle/driver-specific prior 
inspections.
    As the capability, technology, and the communications protocols are 
established in these projects, additional States (including the 
southeastern States) will be able to use the same mailbox system. 
However, there would be a significant advantage to having States in the 
same region of the country implement this system, as reciprocal 
enforcement in each State will assist in creating safer road conditions 
in the other States.
    Question. Please specify in detail the amounts that the CVO program 
has spent or plans to spend on outreach during fiscal year 1997, fiscal 
year 1998, and fiscal year 1999, specifying contract and GOE 
expenditures. What were the purposes of each activity? What was 
achieved? Please break down in detail your use of those monies on a 
project-by-project basis for fiscal year 1998.
    Answer. Outreach is a necessary element of the ITS/CVO program and 
has been successful in a number of areas. Conducting media events of 
ITS/CVO technologies has heightened the awareness of the industry, as 
well as State and local government officials. Informational Focus 
Groups held around the nation for both industry and government 
representatives have informed front line users of ITS/CVO technology 
and provided feedback to the developers of the CVISN initiative. This 
feedback indicated a greater need for stakeholder participation in the 
development and deployment of CVISN and has been an impetus for the 
creation of a CVO policy subcommittee within ITS America. Through these 
outreach efforts, many thousands of stakeholders have been exposed to 
the program thus facilitating the deployment of ITS/CVO.
    The fiscal year 1997 Senate Report 104-325 limited fiscal year 1997 
outreach funds to $100,000. These funds were used to cover costs of 
completing products for the outreach tool kit to support the ITS/CVO 
Program through the following projects:
    1. Design and production of color overheads on the A Technology 
Truck project for presentation to key decision-makers. Writing, editing 
and producing a video tape on the A Technology Truck which was 
reproduced and used to inform the appropriate audiences about the 
availability of the truck for exhibits, briefings and informational 
training sessions. Fiscal year 1997 amount: $35,000--Contract.
    2. Participation in various outreach meetings conducted by partner 
or stakeholder organizations. This provided the representative with an 
opportunity to ensure that the ITS/CVO Program was adequately 
represented as partners and stakeholders developed their own ITS/CVO 
Program activities. Fiscal year 1997 Amount: $5,700--GOE.
    3. Upgrade and add new material to a web-site and home page for the 
ITS/CVO Program. Creatively support the design and development of a 
standing exhibit on the ITS/CVO National Program. Fiscal year 1997 
Amount: $39,000--Contract.
    4. Completion of brochure and overhead slides to support the ITS/
CVO Program. These materials were reproduced in large quantity and 
disseminated to the OMC region and division field staff, and also made 
available for various meetings, exhibits, briefings, and conferences 
throughout the year. Fiscal year 1997 Amount: $19,100--GOE.
    5. Develop and maintain a database of current ITS/CVO stakeholder 
contacts and media contacts. Fiscal year 1997 Amount: $1,200 --GOE.
    In fiscal year 1998, no money has been spent to date on CVO 
outreach. However, if money becomes available the following projects 
are anticipated to be funded:
    1. Partnership and Technical Assistance to Safety Agencies. Funds 
would be used to support continued partnership program with state 
enforcement agencies to provide a maximum of 2 individuals (on loan for 
1 year) to work at safety associations and with the ITS/CVO field and 
headquarters staff on Outreach-related activities and to provide 
technical assistance to their peers. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $100,000 
--GOE.
    2. Ribbon cutting activities. Funds would be used to support 
ribbon-cuttings activities/events involved in spotlighting successful 
ITS/CVO projects, deployment efforts, and program activities. This 
would include advance work as well as printing/graphic art 
requirements, banners, signs, posters, video production, photographic 
requirements, etc. for the event itself. Fiscal year 1998 amount: 
$60,000--GOE.
    3. Speakers bureau. Funds would be used to support participation by 
requested/selected speakers who address a variety of groups regarding 
the ITS/CVO program, projects, cost/benefits, deployment efforts and 
partnership opportunities. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $10,000--GOE.
    4. Newsletters/WWW page. Funds would be used to cover costs for 
continued maintenance and periodic upgrades of the WWW Page/Newsletter 
on the ITS/CVO program. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $20,000--GOE.
    5. Marketing materials. Funds would be used to continue 
disseminating, developing and periodically updating materials, in a 
variety of multi media formats, to be used to inform and educate the 
targeted audiences on the benefits of participating in the ITS/CVO 
program. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $60,000--GOE.
    In the proposed fiscal year 1999 ITS budget, $175,000 of GOE has 
been requested by CVO for Awareness and Advocacy. This money will be 
spent on general ITS/CVO awareness activities. In addition, funds will 
be used to support the production of various publications and 
presentation material to further promote the CVO activities.
    The individual projects are as follows:
    1. Partnership and Technical Assistance to Safety Agencies. Funds 
would be used to support continued partnership program with state 
enforcement agencies to provide a maximum of 2 individuals (on loan for 
1 year) to work at safety associations and with the ITS/CVO field and 
headquarters staff on Outreach-related activities and to provide 
technical assistance to their peers. Fiscal year 1999 amount: $75,000--
GOE.
    2. Ribbon cutting activities. Funds would be used to support 
ribbon-cuttings activities/events involved in spotlighting successful 
ITS/CVO projects, deployment efforts, and program activities. This 
would include advance work as well as printing/graphic art 
requirements, banners, signs, posters, video production, photographic 
requirements, etc. for the event itself. Fiscal year 1998 amount: 
$20,000--GOE.
    3. Newsletters/WWW page. Funds would be used to cover costs for 
continued maintenance and periodic upgrades of the WWW Page/Newsletter 
on the ITS/CVO program. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $20,000--GOE.
    4. Marketing materials. Funds would be used to continue 
disseminating, developing and periodically updating materials, in a 
variety of multi media formats, to be used to inform and educate the 
targeted audiences on the benefits of participating in the ITS/CVO 
program. Fiscal year 1999 amount: $60,000--GOE.
    Question. Funds are requested on-board diagnostic systems. Exactly 
how much of the fiscal year 1998 budget is likely to be allocated for 
that purpose? Explain how those efforts will help MCSAP inspectors 
conduct Level I inspections.
    Answer. Funds requested in fiscal year 1998 for on-board diagnostic 
systems have been subsumed under the IVI program. The IVI program is a 
Department wide effort to coordinated existing and planned vehicle 
based research and operational test projects. For commercial vehicle 
operations, the IVI includes work not only in OMC, but also NHTSA and 
FHWA R&D. Currently $1,100,000 of the first half of fiscal year 1998 
IVI budget is allocated for on-board diagnostic systems in the CVO 
platform. Major projects funded so far in fiscal year 1998 involve 
Drowsy Driver Detection Development, Brake Performance Evaluation and 
Testing, and Commercial Driver Behavior Analysis.
    As part of the IVI effort, OMC is working on merging on and off-
board performance-based technologies and diagnostics. The first 
activity is to develop software for inserting performance based test 
results into ASPEN, in support of OMC's brake testing program. This 
software will have the ability to translate performance-based brake 
test results into a dynamic pictorial representation of the as-is 
stopping capability of commercial vehicles being inspected by CVSA 
Certified Inspectors. In addition, the software will be non-proprietary 
to allow for communication path development to and from the vehicle. As 
on-board diagnostic technologies are operationally tested through the 
IVI program, this software will be flexible to allow for expansion and 
enhancements. This flexibility is necessary for the eventual need to 
download and upload vehicle performance data, in order to provide CVSA 
Certified Inspectors with as much information as possible concerning 
the performance condition of the vehicle.
    Question. Please break down exactly how FHWA intends to use the $4 
million requested.
    Answer. Within the Department's Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, 
$4,000,000 will be jointly managed by FHWA and NHTSA to build on 
technologies developed by the two agencies, which began in fiscal year 
1995. We are targeting electronic braking, driver monitoring, on-board 
diagnostics (including black box/incident recorders) and human centered 
integration. In the budget we have allocated $1 million for evaluation 
of each of these issues. We are developing the details of how we will 
carry out these investigations in consultation with our stakeholders 
and the technical community. The implication is that we may be able to 
evaluate these issues in a single operational test or for technical and 
institutional reasons we may need to break it out to as many as four 
separate studies.
    Question. Please break out in extensive detail how all of the CVO 
monies are being allocated in fiscal year 1998. Please provide three 
different tables showing that allocation--one table including interim 
funds only, one table showing the entire fiscal year 1998 allocation 
assuming full authorization of the appropriated amount, and one table 
showing the source of those monies including NHTSA/ITS or other NHTSA 
funds that have been combined with CVO/ITS monies.
    Answer. For the purposes of responding to this question, CVO funds 
are those ITS dollar resources which are allocated to the Associate 
Administrator for Motor Carriers to implement the CVO portion of the 
ITS program. The following consolidates the requested information into 
only one table, which shows our best estimate of fiscal year 1998 
funding which will be made available to the CVO program under an 
interim allocation of funds and assuming we receive funding as proposed 
in our fiscal year 1998 budget.
    All funds shown are monies assumed to be made available to the 
Federal Highway Administration for the ITS program via both GOE and 
contract authority.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Interim
                                                fiscal year     Total
                                                    1998     fiscal year
                                                 allocation      1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Development......................        6,175        7,500
Operational Tests.............................          500        2,000
Evaluation and Program Assessment.............  ...........          350
Architecture and Standards....................          250          500
Mainstreaming.................................        1,180        2,750
ITS Deployment Incentives.....................  ...........       25,000
                                               -------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL.............................        8,105       38,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide comparable fiscal year 1999 tables for the 
last two tables requested in the previous question.
    Answer. The following table reflects estimated fiscal year 1999 CVO 
funding assuming we receive dollar resources for the ITS program as 
proposed in our fiscal year 1999 budget.

                         (Dollars in thousands)

                                                             Fiscal year
                                                                    1999

Research and Development..........................................$8,000
Operational Tests................................................. 4,000
Evaluation and Program Assessment.......................................
    Architecture and Standards....................................   500
    Mainstreaming................................................. 2,875
ITS Deployment Incentives.........................................25,000
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      GRAND TOTAL.................................................40,375

    Question. Over the years, OMC has funded research on several 
devices aimed at measuring fatigue or rest. For example, you funded 
work on a similar (Arizona project), on a device worn on the wrist 
(Army project), and on a new device based on the measurement of eye lid 
closure. What is the exact status of each of those technologies?
    Answer. The three technologies accomplish three different things; 
all have potential application for improved CMV driver fatigue 
management. Two are currently the subject of active FHWA and NHTSA 
research.
    The Arizona simulator project focused on fitness-for-duty testing 
involving the administration of a psychomotor test to drivers suspected 
of being fatigued. Fitness-for-duty testing was demonstrated to be 
potentially valid (i.e., performance correlated highly with driving 
performance) and feasible as a management aid involving periodic in-cab 
(but non-driving) testing. However, it was never deployed by Arizona as 
an enforcement tool. Related work to develop a device to identify those 
who should stop to take the in-cab fitness-for-duty test, utilizing a 
continuous lane-tracking device was not successful and is no longer 
being funded. OMC regards its past fitness-for-duty research as 
productive but we are not currently funding additional work on this 
application.
    The Army project involves using a device called an actigraph. An 
actigraph is a miniature wrist-worn accelerometer and processor that 
measures and records arm movements which are highly correlated with the 
sleep-wakefulness cycle. The device scores sleep quantity and quality 
and predicts performance based on a sleep/performance model which 
factors in the amount and timing of sleep, time-of-day (as influenced 
by circadian rhythms), and number of hours awake. The actigraph is the 
most market-ready of fatigue management technologies. A planned OMC-
funded operational test of fatigue management technologies, directed by 
the Congress as part of fiscal year 1998 R&T funding, will likely focus 
on the use of the actigraph as an aid to CMV driver fatigue management.
    The third device measures eyelid closure. The recent ITS/CVO-funded 
and NHTSA-managed laboratory research at the University of Pennsylvania 
has confirmed the validity of an eyelid closure measure called APERCLOS 
as a gold standard measure of operator alertness. Current research at 
Carnegie Mellon Research Institute is further validating PERCLOS on-
road in a real truck in relation to driving performance measures such 
as lane tracking. Carnegie Mellon is also developing a video image 
processing sensor for research, and potentially operational, 
applications. Continuous in-vehicle driver monitoring measures driving 
performance (e.g., steering wheel movements, lane tracking) and/or 
driver psychophysiology (e.g., eyelid droop) as an alertometer. This 
approach has the most far-reaching implications for CMV driver fatigue 
management. It is envisioned that alertometer readings will function as 
driver behavior/performance benchmarks used to directly ensure a 
specific criterion level of driver safety performance. The approach 
would be similar to speed monitoring or even brake monitoring; drivers 
would be responsible for achieving a criterion level of alertness and, 
therefore, alertness-related safety. We believe that this technology 
will be attractive to drivers if it is introduced in a positive manner 
which includes rewards such as increased schedule flexibility. There 
are many technical, practical, and policy issues to be addressed before 
the alertometer approach can be operationally fielded. However, FHWA/
NHTSA research has demonstrated scientific proof-of-concept and we are 
now beginning to pursue the actual application of this concept to 
enhancing CMV fatigue management and hence safety.
    Question. How much has been spent on each device to date?
    Answer. Most of the funding has been spent for basic research, not 
devices, to establish valid measures of driver alertness and 
performance. The only device that is commercially available is the Army 
actigraph (device worn on the wrist). However, more research is needed 
to validate their use in motor carrier fleets before they have 
widespread commercial use. The amount of OMC research funds that have 
been spent to date are $1,428,565 on the Arizona simulator, and 
$1,206,574 on the Army actigraph. A total of $1,579,040 has been spent 
to date by OMC and NHTSA on the eye lid closure device.
    Question. Are any of those technologies in use and contributing to 
motor carrier safety?
    Answer. The Army's actigraph is available commercially but not yet 
validated for extensive carrier use. None of the other technologies are 
in commercial use. Two of these devices, the Army's actigraph and the 
eye lid closure device are part of OMC and NHTSA's research to enhance 
motor carrier safety. Their potential contributions to motor carrier 
safety will be demonstrated through results from the research projects 
described below.
    The actigraphs are being worn by commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 
drivers for up to 21 days. This research will provide information 
concerning potential use of actigraphs to improve the management of CMV 
driver fatigue. The actigraph is a near-term technology that should be 
ready for widespread use in the CMV industry in 2-4 years.
    The second technology, the eye lid closure device and associated 
driver performance measures, is expected to be tested jointly by OMC 
and NHTSA beginning in fiscal year 1999. It will likely become 
commercially available in 3-5 years.
    Question. Are those likely to achieve such an objective? If so, 
when?
    Answer. Yes, both the actigraph and eye lid closure devices are 
expected to contribute significantly to motor carrier safety.
    Actigraphs are commercially available now, but near-term research 
and development is needed to validate effective procedures for their 
use in motor carrier fleets. Widespread commercial use is still 
probably 2-4 years away.
    Continuous driver alertness monitoring (i.e., eye lid closure and 
associated performance decrements) has been proven in the laboratory 
and is currently being tested on the road. Further sensor development 
for real time processing, validation, and pilot testing of this 
application will begin in fiscal year 1999. Widespread 
commercialization is expected in 3-5 years.
    Question. How many years will it take to develop the latest (eye 
closure) technology? What is the likelihood that its reliability could 
be validated? How likely is it that it would be upheld by the courts as 
an acceptable enforcement tool?
    Answer. It will take two years to develop the latest (eye closure) 
technology, but it will be 3-5 years before it is commercially 
available. When we speak of eye closure technology, we mean a real-time 
system, which consists of a means of sensing eye closure, a basis for 
quantitatively predicting driver drowsiness based on eye closure, and a 
means of advising drivers of their state of drowsiness. A performance 
specification for such a drowsy driver detection and warning system 
will be available in fiscal year 2000. At the same time, the advanced 
engineering prototype used to develop this specification will be 
available for use in some commercial settings.
    The likelihood that its reliability could be validated is 
excellent. Phase I laboratory studies in fiscal year 1997 showed that 
the percentage of eyelid closure over the pupil over time was a highly 
valid and reliable index of lapses in visual attention. This behavioral 
index (PERCLOS) was then successfully applied to driving performance 
data collected from Overnight Express truck drivers, providing a 
reliable performance-based model of drowsiness detection. Both 
behavioral and performance indices will be evaluated in the fielded 
system during Phase II development in fiscal year 1998.
    The likelihood of it being upheld by the courts as an acceptable 
enforcement tool is uncertain. The use of this technology as an 
enforcement tool, as upheld by the courts, could not be estimated until 
the above research is completed, and until we fully understand the 
operational reliability and improvement in safety afforded by the 
system.
    Question. Will it be ready for an operational test in fiscal year 
1999? What is the basis of your answer?
    Answer. Yes. An operational test is planned for mid fiscal year 
1999. Second-phase engineering development in fiscal year 1998 is 
underway to produce a real-time ocular sensor. An initial second-phase 
prototype drowsy driver detection system will be available by May 1998 
for use in a second laboratory-based experiment. By July 1998 we also 
plan to implement and test a commercial vehicle-based sensor. The lab 
study will provide initial information about how we would expect 
drivers to utilize this newly available information about their level 
of fatigue (operational reliability); i.e., will crashes be pushed 
further down the road? The lab study will also improve our 
understanding about the effectiveness of various alerting stimulation, 
once drowsiness is detected.
                     intelligent vehicle initiative
    Question. What are the costs and benefits of allocating scarce 
funds on technology for highway maintenance vehicles to shadow other 
highway maintenance vehicles?
    Answer. We have not included funding for highway maintenance shadow 
vehicle development in the fiscal year 1999 budget. Although some of 
the service development work being done for other platform types could 
in the future be applied to this application. Manned shadow vehicles 
are currently used by some highway maintenance operations use to 
protect employees working on highways, medians, and road shoulders in 
close proximity to moving traffic. The shadow vehicles present a 
physical barrier to separate workers from traffic and protect their 
safety. The costs of the heavy shadow vehicles and drivers are 
relatively high. The potential benefits of automating the shadow 
vehicles are reduced cost from removing the driver and using a 
relatively smaller shadow vehicle, and improved safety.
    The feasibility of an automated shadow vehicle is still being 
investigated. There already are efforts underway to develop prototype 
automated shadow vehicles (the National Research Council's Strategic 
Highway Research Program and the Advanced Highway Maintenance and 
Construction Technologies Center). The costs of providing such 
automated shadow vehicles cannot reliably be determined at this time, 
though costs will clearly affect the acceptability of these vehicles to 
highway maintenance agencies.
    Question. Why are you dividing the IVI funds among so many 
purposes? Are the synergistic benefits worth the splintering of this 
program?
    Answer. The IVI program and its funds are focused on a single 
purpose: to accelerate the development, introduction, and 
commercialization of driver assistance products to reduce motor vehicle 
crashes. All activities that we undertake must feed this purpose. We 
expect to achieve our goals faster by judiciously funding activities 
over the four platform areas than if we focus solely on passenger cars. 
The 26 services are only a starting point. We will down-select to a 
list of specific services at the completion of fiscal year 1998. We 
expect to invest in services that apply to transit, commercial vehicles 
and specialty vehicles because the unique environments allow us to 
investigate services that would not be immediately practical on 
passenger cars due to the vehicle costs, driver training and operating 
environments.
    Early crash avoidance systems are expected to be vehicle based. 
This line of research will be followed on passenger cars while more 
advanced capabilities which involve infrastructure or vehicle 
cooperation can be investigated on transit platforms. The advantages of 
transit are that the fleet operator specifies the vehicles capability 
whereas in the passenger car the manufacturer must wait for wide spread 
consumer demand to develop. The transit vehicle operates over a fixed 
course. This make cooperative infrastructure more attractive since it 
limits the deployment area. Drowsy driver research which is vehicle 
independent will be applied first in commercial vehicles. The unique 
operating and regulatory environment make this platform the most likely 
to be the first to widely deploy such a system. The intent of these 
examples, is to show how each platform will incrementally advance 
critical parts of the program while cross cutting activities such as 
architecture development ensure overall system compatibility.
    Question. What, if any, is the relationship between the PNGV and 
the IVI?
    Answer. There is no relationship between PNGV and IVI. PNGV is 
focused on fuel economy while IVI is focused on safety. The two 
programs will share different parts of participating organizations 
(NHTSA, Ford, GM and Chrysler). The technologies that each program is 
working on are different and do not overlap.
    Question. How could those two activities be integrated?
    Answer. We do not feel that there will be any benefit derived from 
integrating these two activities. The goals, activities and schedules 
of the two programs are mutually exclusive thereby cutting out any 
opportunities for synergisms. The PNGV is one of many good models for 
the public-private partnership that IVI will form. The Big 3 automotive 
manufacturers in their response to the IVI RFI specifically site the 
PNGV as an example of successful cooperation.
    They recommend it be considered for a model but do not recommend 
that IVI be integrated into this program.
           nationwide differential global positioning system
    Question. What is the total amount in the Department's budget for 
DGPS? In which accounts?
    Answer. The following table details DGPS funding in the 
Department's budget by mode:

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year--
                                               -------------------------
                                                    1998         1999
                                                  enacted      estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard...................................         $4.2  ...........
FHWA..........................................  ...........         $5.5
FRA...........................................  ...........          3.0
                                               -------------------------
      Total, DOT..............................          4.2          8.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What is the total amount of federal monies likely to be 
needed to complete the nationwide DGPS? How long will it take to 
complete that objective?
    Answer. The Department currently estimates that $30.3 million will 
be needed to complete the installation of nationwide DGPS. Under the 
current schedule, installation of the entire system would be completed 
in 2002. To meet the funding required, the Department is pursuing 
funding from other Federal agencies. Future capital funding, if any, 
for NDGPS, will be provided through contributions from federal agencies 
whose programs will benefit from the new technology. Future operational 
funding for the NDGPS system will come through fees on users or 
manufacturers of equipment.
    Question. Which agency will be the lead administrative agency for 
the DGPS program?
    Answer. FRA is serving as the lead agency for the expansion of the 
existing Coast Guard Maritime Differential GPS network (which is 
currently limited to coastal and navigable waterways).
    Question. How much was in the original FHWA request for DGPS? Was 
an additional sum added? By whom? How much of this money can be 
reasonably spent during the next year? Why is this an immediate need 
that would require an outlay from the Federal Highway Trust Fund?
    Answer. A multi-agency team, including FHWA and FRA, expects to 
install approximately 8 NDGPS sites, upgrade existing monitoring 
facilities to accommodate the additional sites in this network, and 
cover operations and maintenance costs in fiscal year 1999. Current 
estimates put this at approximately $8.5 million. The Administration 
request for fiscal year 1999 is $3 million for FRA and $5.5 million for 
FHWA.
    While the FHWA has conducted the research studies behind this and 
will continue to support the effort, we also recognize the substantial 
benefits across many Federal agencies and to the general public in the 
deployment of this service.
    Question. How will you ensure that the investment in DGPS is 
geographically correlated with ITS deployment?
    Answer. Nationwide DGPS, in combination with the current U.S. Coast 
Guard DGPS network, will within four years provide redundant coverage 
everywhere in the continental United States and Alaska. The Nationwide 
DGPS network, once completed, by definition, will support all ITS 
deployments, and all other positioning/navigation applications.
    Question. Will these expenditures be co-located with specific 
positive Train control projects that are planned or underway? Which 
projects?
    Answer. There is, or will be DGPS coverage co-located with 
currently planned positive train control projects. The Illinois PTC 
project is already thoroughly covered by two U.S. Coast Guard stations 
(Rock Island, IL and St. Louis, MO) providing redundant DGPS signal 
coverage. CSX has contracted with Rockwell to develop a positive train 
control project on the 120 mile rail line between Spartanburg, NC and 
Augusta, GA. This area will be covered by NDGPS stations, utilizing 
GWEN towers, in Savannah, GA and Lexington, NC. Both of these 
installations are planned to be installed and on-the-air before the end 
of fiscal year 1998. The Michigan PTC project currently uses a special 
DGPS network developed specifically for the project. In the future, 
when the NDGPS network is operational, the Michigan PTC project will 
make use of it. The current NDGPS station at Appleton, WA will continue 
to support the Positive Train Separation project on the UP and BNSF 
railroads in the Pacific Northwest. When the Nationwide DGPS network is 
completed in four years, it will support any and all positive train 
control projects in the continental United States and Alaska.
                        international activities
    Question. Please specify the number of planned and completed 
international scanning trips taken during fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 
1997, and fiscal year 1998. Please specify the total costs of these 
trips for each year and specify which portion of the LGOE or contract 
monies paid for these trips.
    Answer. The FHWA completed four international Scanning reviews in 
fiscal year 1996. The Scanning Study Program budget for fiscal year 
1996 was approximately $400,000. It was funded through ISTEA Section 
6005 funds. The studies were: Bridge Coating Issues; Traffic Management 
and Traveler Information Systems; Technology and Practices in the 
Republic of South Africa; and European Traffic Monitoring Programs and 
Technologies.
    The FHWA completed five international Scanning reviews in fiscal 
year 1997. The Scanning Study Program budget for fiscal year 1997 was 
approximately $450,000. It was funded through ISTEA Section 6005 funds. 
The studies were: Repair/Rehabilitation of Bridges using Fiber-
Reinforced Composite Materials Safety Audits; Transportation Agency 
Organization and Management Scanning Review; Bridge Structures Scanning 
Review; and Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Protection Technology and 
Closing Programs Review.
    The FHWA has four international Scanning reviews planned for fiscal 
year 1998 with an estimated fiscal year 1998 budget of $450,000 
(pending reauthorization). Under the current law budget, these reviews 
are presently being funded by a combination of carry-over fiscal year 
1997 ISTEA Section 6005 funds and fiscal year 1998 GOE funds. The 
reviews are: Innovative and Emerging Traffic Controls for Congestion 
and Safety; Winter Road Maintenance Practices; International Scanning 
Tour for Geotechnology--Canada and Europe; and Motor Carrier Safety 
Technologies.
    Question. Please compare the amount of funds allocated to the 
Republic of South Africa with funds allocated to other countries.
    Answer. The funding level for the South Africa program is 
comparable with funding levels for the FHWA's other international 
programs:
    The FHWA's South Africa Program: Fiscal year 1996: $600,000 GOE and 
$200,000 International Outreach Program funds (GOE). Fiscal year 1997: 
$300,000 GOE. Fiscal year 1998: $300,000 GOE (planned estimate).
    The FHWA's Russia Program: Fiscal year 1996: $400,000. Fiscal year 
1997: $200,000. Fiscal year 1998: $200,000(planned).
    The FHWA's Pan American Institute of Highways: Fiscal year 1996: 
$400,000. Fiscal year 1997: $275,000. Fiscal year 1998: $200,000 
(planned).
    The FHWA's Cooperative Program with Finland to transfer technology 
to the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania: Fiscal year 
1996: $36,800. Fiscal year 1997: $40,500. Fiscal year 1998: $30,000 
(planned).
    FHWA's Border Technology Exchange Program (allocated to U.S. border 
States for activities with Mexico and Canada): Fiscal year 1996: 
$400,000. Fiscal year 1997: $500,000. Fiscal year 1998: $500,000 
(planned).
    Question. What are the benefits to the United States of each of 
these allocations to foreign entities?
    Answer. The benefit of these expenditures is that these countries 
receive information concerning U.S. transportation technology and 
practices which will allow them to more effectively construct and 
manage their transportation systems, thus supporting the U.S. foreign 
policy of encouraging economic development and democratization of newly 
independent and developing countries.
    These expenditures have the added benefit of promoting U.S. highway 
related firms since the countries involved in technical exchange and 
assistance activities tend to develop a preference for U.S. standards 
and equipment. As it is the private sector in this country that 
designed and built this nation's highway projects, these programs 
highlight such contributions and commend the U.S. highway industry to 
our foreign counterparts. The benefits of these expenditures are 
already evident in two of the countries the FHWA has initiated 
activities with:
  --The FHWA supported Hoffman International in its efforts to develop 
        an equipment leasing joint venture in Russia. The venture has 
        resulted in shipping over $15 million in U.S. equipment to 
        Russia and training in U.S. asphaltic pavement construction 
        techniques for over 80 Russian highway officials and 
        contractors.
  --The FHWA's support of the Russian Federal Highway Department's 
        (RFHD) efforts to model its highway program after the U.S. 
        highway program have resulted in commercial opportunities and 
        design contracts for several U.S. firms. The RFHD has set aside 
        a large design and construction project which would complete 
        the last section of the trans-Siberian highway exclusively for 
        U.S. firms.
  --Due to the FHWA's technical program in the Baltic states, Estonia 
        recently purchased a U.S. manufactured asphalt plant for use in 
        their highway program.
    Question. Please provide estimates for fiscal year 1997, fiscal 
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 of the amounts of funds used or planned 
to be used to promote marketing by U.S. Companies of highway-related 
technologies abroad.
    Answer. Estimated funding to promote by U.S. highway technologies 
abroad is difficult to separate out as a specific amount since these 
activities are usually incorporated as a larger part of a technical 
exchange or assistance program. The estimates are: Fiscal year 1997: 
$125,000. Fiscal year 1998: $125,000 (planned). Fiscal year 1999: 
$200,000 (planned).
    Question. On a contract by contract basis, please show how the 
fiscal year 1997 funds were used, being certain to specify associated 
amounts with each contract. Please provide a table showing LGOE funds 
for all international activities.
    Answer. The charts below contain the break downs for the requested 
funding. These charts include information for all of the Office of 
International Program's primary contracts. It also contains categories 
for other expenses which would have been too unwieldy to list here 
(i.e.--the cost of translating technical documents is listed as a 
category rather than by individual document). The FHWA's fiscal year 
1997 funding for International Outreach Activities is $475,000, which 
is 3 year funding. Fiscal year 1997 funding for the Russian Technical 
Assistance is $200,000. These are also 3 year funds.

        Description                                                 Cost

Fiscal year 1997 International Outreach Program Funds:
    Contract for support of the FHWA's international Visitors 
      Program and two PIH contract employees..................$99,800.00
    Contract for the FHWA's contract representative in Moscow, 
      Russia (trade promotion-related activities).............129,717.89
    Cooperative Agreement with the Finnish Road Administration 
      for the FHWA's technical assistance program with the 
      Baltic.................................................. 40,500.00
    Contract for an assessment study of the FHWA's Baltic 
      Technology Transfer Centers.............................  4,865.15
    Equipment for the Technology Transfer Center the FHWA is 
      supporting in Tanzania.................................. 15,073.73
    Technology Exchange Activities with the Japanese Ministry 
      of Construction......................................... 11,453.59
    FHWA's participation with the International Road 
      Federation, including participation in the IRF World 
      Congress in Toronto.....................................  3,162.31
    FHWA's participation with the World Road Administration 
      (PIARC), including U.S. Government membership dues and 
      the PIARC Executive Committee Meetings.................. 45,590.69
    Support of the FHWA's participation in the Latin American 
      ITS Conference..........................................  5,800.00
    Translations of technical documents and foreign 
      correspondence..........................................  5,150.00
    International Outreach Program publications, including 
      brochures and other items...............................  7,674.00
    Finalization and printing of the FHWA's Trade Promotion 
      Study...................................................  3,158.20
    Support of FHWA Conference on Accessing Foreign Technical 
      Information.............................................    766.00
    FHWA hosting activities for international officials.......  2,696.23
    General office support which includes printing supplies 
      and film for international presentations, conversion of 
      PAL format video tapes, an optical scanning unit, etc...  8,688.63
    Support of the European Commission conference on 
      Intermodal Freight Transport............................ 19,000.00
    Technical exchange with the IRF as a part of the FHWA's 
      Russian Technical Assistance Program....................  9,000.00
    Publications..............................................  3,288.69
    Registrations for international conferences on freight 
      logistics, etc..........................................  1,932.06
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................417,317.17
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1997 Russian Technical Assistance Program 
    Description:
    Cost Contract with the FHWA's representative in Moscow, 
      Russia..................................................195,000.00
    Cooperative activities with the IRF as a part of the 
      Russian Technical Assistance Program....................  5,000.00
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

        Total spent...........................................200,000.00
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1997 LGOE Funds spent on International Activities 
    Description:
    Cost Foreign Travel.......................................345,000.00
    Cooperative Agreement with the South African DOT in 
      support of the FHWA's African Program...................300,000.00
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

        Total spent...........................................645,000.00
                   national rural development program
    Question. What have been the benefits of the President's rural 
initiative to the Department? Why is that request specified under GOE? 
Why isn't funding for that requested under the OST account?
    Answer. The National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP), 
originally called the President's Rural Initiative, has benefited and 
continues to benefit the Department in a number of ways. It provided a 
unique and useful source of issues, ideas, and recommendations for 
rural-focused programs during the development of our surface 
transportation reauthorization proposal. This was particularly 
important because rural communities are not a constituency with which 
the Department has well-developed lines of communication. In addition, 
the NRDP will be a continuing source of information on rural issues in 
such DOT efforts as the development of a strategy for improving the 
non-metropolitan transportation planning process. Some of the State 
Rural Development Councils, which are supported through the NRDP, have 
taken up transportation issues--both specific, such as the appropriate 
design of rural transportation facilities, and the more general, such 
as rural concerns regarding reauthorization. An important factor in our 
involvement in the NRDP is that it provides a broad-based rural 
constituency that provides the Department with an organization focused 
clearly on the needs of the Nation's rural population.
    The Partnership is proposed for funding under LGOE within the FHWA 
because the ongoing nature of the Department's support, and relatively 
small amount requested, fit most appropriately with activities funded 
out of LGOE. In addition, within the Department, FHWA is the mode 
involved most frequently on meeting rural transportation needs.
           motor carrier safety assistance program and prism
    Question. Please break out in extensive detail how you would spend 
the $17 million requested under Information Systems and Analysis.
    Answer. Information systems ($5 million).--These funds will be used 
to support expansion of the Federal/State motor carrier safety 
information systems. Motor carrier information systems provide the 
means to maintain an accurate carrier census and target unsafe 
carriers, prioritize carriers for audits, establish a motor carrier 
safety fitness rating and profile, manage program resources 
effectively, analyze programs and regulations, and track industry 
statistics and trends. Funds will benefit the States by providing 
national, compatible software and hardware as well as access to a 
national information system. Future development and deployment will 
emphasize unified information systems, including a complete motor 
carrier register involving the integration of ICC and DOT systems, on-
line, roadside access of motor carrier information to guide the 
selection of vehicles and drivers for inspection based on prior safety 
history, and the expansion of national records to include intrastate 
carriers.
    Motor Carrier Analysis ($3 million).--These funds will be used to 
continue and expand analysis of motor carrier census, crash and 
exposure data. The analysis function within OMC is an integral 
component in policy and program development and requires sound, 
statistically-based approaches. It provides the basis for evaluating 
program effectiveness and determining changes to program activities. 
Improved analysis will enable the FHWA and States to establish program 
benchmarks and evaluate program performance while meeting the 
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act. Other 
projects include: studying truck crash causation, evaluating exposure 
data, and collecting information on the regulated population of motor 
carriers.
    Nationwide implementation of PRISM/SafeStat ($6 million).--These 
funds will support the national implementation of a 5-State pilot 
program mandated by ISTEA. The PRISM pilot tested the feasibility of an 
information system linking safety fitness and State motor vehicle 
registration. The PRISM pilot project (Iowa, Colorado, Indiana, 
Minnesota and Oregon) tested the integration of Federal data systems 
with State motor vehicle registration systems and coupled the 
suspension denial of vehicle registration with a Federal determination 
of unsafe operations. The motor carrier industry was an active 
participant in the project. The system links State motor vehicle 
registration with carrier data, assigning the safety responsibility for 
each vehicle being registered to the appropriate motor carrier, 
identifies high-risk carriers, provides mechanisms for carriers to 
improve their performance, actively monitors safety progress, and 
improves enforcement by providing sanctions. The pilot project was 
highly successful and other States are now seeking to participate.
    Driver programs including driver education, evaluation of driver 
performance, and licensing enhancements ($3 million).--Funds will be 
used to help States build their capacity to exchange driver information 
with courts within their State and with licensing agencies in other 
States. This will allow courts to make more informed adjudicatory 
decisions on commercial driver citations and ensure out-of-state 
convictions are transmitted to the State of licensure in a timely and 
accurate manner for placement on the driver record. These funds will 
also be used to support education for judges, prosecutors and law 
enforcement on enforcement and adjudication of commercial motor vehicle 
offenses, enhance the electronic administration of commercial driver's 
licensing tests by state licensing agencies, improve State driver 
examiner training, and provide licensing agencies with the support 
necessary to revise their data systems to capture data on commercial 
driver license suspension and revocation actions. These activities are 
particularly crucial given the high level of driver contribution to 
crashes and the lack of Federal investment in driver programs since the 
implement of the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) in 1992.
    Question. How many new States are participating in PRISM? What 
convincing evidence can you present that the PRISM effort needs a 
funding increase?
    Answer. The PRISM pilot program officially ended September 30, 
1997. In the seven months since the end of the pilot, Pennsylvania has 
joined the other five States in the PRISM program. In addition, OMC has 
received applications for participation from South Dakota and Maine. 
Further, 11 states have expressed an interest in participating. They 
are: Connecticut, Vermont, Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, 
Missouri, Arizona, California, Nevada and Washington. At an estimated 
start-up cost of $450,000 per State and with present appropriation 
levels limited to $3 million per year, PRISM participation can only 
increase by at most four to five States per year.
    Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown on a project by 
project basis of the use of MCSAP administrative takedown funds for 
fiscal year 1997 and thus for fiscal year 1998. Please be certain to 
specify the amount spent on each activity.
    Answer. See chart below.

                                                                  Amount

Fiscal year 1997 activity:
    National Training Center (State training and Associate 
      travel).................................................  $590,000
    Performance-Based Workshop, St. Louis, MO.................    13,636
    Performance-Based Workbook printing.......................       230
    Performance-Based Workshop Speaker........................     1,950
    Performance-Based Workshop Contractor (ASTI)..............    72,000
    Safetynet 2000 State Technical Workgroup (Kentucky).......    20,000
    Guardian Newsletter (CVSA)................................    18,000
    TCC (Safetynet Contract)..................................    32,000
    Challenge '97 Supplies and electrical service.............     1,554
    IACP Contract (Task #3, Techniques for Safe Commercial 
      Vehicle Stops and Approaches)...........................    29,492
    RSIS Contract (feasibility of using risk assessment for 
      roadside inspection selection)..........................    38,500
    Arrowhead, Inc. (Part-time staff program support).........     6,688
    HOS Peer Review State Participant Recognition (plaques)...       950
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   825,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1998 activity (thru 4/15/98):
    National Training Center (State training and Associate 
      travel).................................................   310,000
    Performance-Based training and Instructor travel..........    20,000
    New York travel funds for Judicial Outreach program 
      conferences speakers....................................     8,000
    CVSA (State Strategic Plan)...............................     7,000
    MCSAP Office Program Supplies.............................       710
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   412,500
            advanced vehicle, components, and infrastructure
    Question. Why shouldn't this activity be funded solely by DOE?
    Answer. One of the key principles for the reauthorization of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act is to encourage the 
development and deployment of new technologies. The Department strongly 
believes that advanced technology is critical to enhancing the safety, 
efficiency, capacity and longevity of our Nation's transportation 
systems as well as reducing travel times across all modes. We are also 
cognizant of the impacts of transportation on our local and global 
environments including air and water quality, wetlands, noise and other 
factors. Advanced technologies provide opportunities to significantly 
reduce some of these impacts while maintaining the Nation's demand for 
ever-increasing mobility. Given the broad implications of advanced 
technologies across all of the modes, DOT should play a leading role. 
This program marries the Department's responsibility for vehicular 
impact (safety, environmental, and vehicle movement enabled by 
infrastructure) with emerging technologies to improve the whole 
transportation system. Through a joint effort with the Department of 
Energy (DOE), the Department will be able to leverage advanced 
technology development efforts from the Department of Defense (DOD) and 
DOE to ensure that vehicle applications extend beyond just automobiles 
and trucks and look for opportunities to apply technologies to transit, 
rail, maritime and aviation.
    Question. How much is DOE spending during fiscal year 1998 on 
battery development, flywheels, alternative fuels and engines, and 
other activities relevant to the objectives of this program?
    Answer. According to the fiscal year 1998 DOE budget, activities in 
the Transportation Sector included $198.3 million for programs related 
to the objectives of the proposed program (see breakdown in chart 
below). It is important to note that although the technology areas 
specified in this question are related to those of the proposed 
program, most activities currently conducted by DOE--Advanced 
Automotive Technologies--support the development of passenger 
automobiles or light-duty vehicles under the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. Only $25.6 million is directed 
towards heavy vehicle technologies. The proposed joint program (also 
referred to as ``the Advanced Vehicle Program'') will focus on medium 
and heavy-duty vehicles and serve a different sector of the 
transportation system. The program will involve partnering with the 
Department of Energy and seven regional consortia representing a broad 
mix of U.S. companies, public entities and research institutions.

                                                             In millions

ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (automotive alternative fuels, 
    advanced battery, high power energy storage, fuel cells)......$113.3
ADVANCED HEAVY VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES (heavy vehicle alternative 
    fuels, high efficiency diesel engine).........................  25.6
TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS TECHNOLOGIES (lightweight materials, 
    propulsion materials).........................................  35.0
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT (Clean Cities, vehicle field test/evalua- 
    tion).........................................................  11.8
IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............................   7.6
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      TOTAL FISCAL YEAR 1998...................................... 193.3

    Question. How much does DOE propose to spend during fiscal year 
1999 on those technologies?
    Answer. According to the fiscal year 1999 DOE budget request, 
activities in the Transportation Sector include $246 million for 
programs in related vehicle technologies (see breakdown in chart 
below). The $10 million requested by DOE specifically for the proposed 
Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) is included in the category of Advanced 
Heavy Vehicle Technologies. As stated in the answer to the previous 
question, it is important to note that although the variety of 
technology areas included below are related to those of the proposed 
AVP, many activities proposed by DOE for fiscal year 1999 funding 
support the development of passenger automobiles or light-duty vehicles 
under the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. 
The proposed joint program, AVP, would serve a different sector of the 
transportation system. The proposal to develop vehicles, components, 
and infrastructure in partnership with the Department of Energy and 
with a consortia of private companies and public entities would serve 
vehicles categorized primarily as medium and heavy-duty. This program 
would involve partnering with a broad mix of U.S. companies, public 
entities and research institutions. In addition, some of DOE's programs 
pertaining to heavy vehicles will require a greater commitment of funds 
than would be available under the proposed program and/or a focus on 
technologies not necessarily within the scope of the proposed program 
(e.g., clean diesel technologies).
    For fiscal year 1999 the DOE budget request in the Transportation 
Sector is:

                                                             In millions

ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (automotive alternative fuels, 
    advanced battery, high power energy storage, fuel cells)......$144.6
ADVANCED HEAVY VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES (heavy vehicle alternative 
    fuels, high efficiency diesel engine, AVP)....................  44.2
TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS TECHNOLOGIES (lightweight materials, 
    propulsion materials).........................................  31.8
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT (Clean Cities, vehicle field test/evalua- 
    tion).........................................................  16.2
IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............................   9.2
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      TOTAL FISCAL YEAR 1999...................................... 246.0

    Question. What is the empirical basis for the $10 million request? 
How will those funds be allocated?
    Answer. The request for the proposed Advanced Vehicle Program is 
based on the funding history of the program as it currently exists, as 
the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Program under the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This program has been funded at the 
$15 million level for the past several years, down from a high of $46 
million during its second year. In anticipation of the transition of 
this program to DOT and DOE, each Department has requested $10 million 
in fiscal year 1999 to provide a slight increase for the continuation 
of this highly successful program. To maximize the value of the 
program, contracting partners are required to provide a minimum 50 
percent cost share. This brings the total public and private investment 
to a value of approximately $40 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The funds will be allocated using the current competitive process 
developed under the DARPA program. The government (DOE and DOT) will 
provide broad performance guidance on the program objectives, focus 
areas and selection criteria. Concept papers based on this guidance 
will be solicited from the eligible regional consortia. From a review 
of these concept papers by DOE and DOT, full proposals will be 
requested for those ranked high. Awards for funding will be made based 
on the full proposals submitted. Funding will be awarded through 
cooperative agreements and other transactions authority.
    Question. Will those funds be used to help develop improved train 
engines? Improved marine engines? If so, why should those activities be 
funded out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund?
    Answer. Funding under the proposed Advanced Vehicle Program will be 
used to develop, demonstrate and deploy advanced technologies for 
vehicles, components and infrastructure to improve fuel efficiency, 
reduce criteria pollutants and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 
program is not limited to specific technologies, but the emphasis will 
be on medium and heavy duty vehicles. This includes, but is not limited 
to, medium and heavy duty trucks and buses. Accordingly, the program 
could include projects addressing improved train and marine engine or 
propulsion technologies.
    A number of the technologies funded under the AVP will have 
potential crossmodal applications and benefits. To the extent that 
these technologies are applicable to other modes and other vehicle 
platforms, DOT will ensure that the technologies are coordinated and 
widely disseminated among the DOT modal administrations and the 
transportation research community.
    Even though its funding is being requested as part of the Federal 
Highway Trust Fund, the AVP has application across all modes. The 
transportation sector accounts for over 67 percent of the national 
petroleum consumption. The U.S. transportation sector itself is 97 
percent dependent on petroleum. This translates into the transportation 
sector accounting for one-third of the CO2 emissions with 
motor vehicles accounting for about 25 percent alone. Pollutants from 
motor vehicles are major contributors to problems with urban air 
quality. Technologies developed through this program could 
significantly increase the energy efficiency of vehicles and reduce 
emissions. In these ways, gains made in the efficiency or environmental 
benefits of one platform benefit the whole transportation system.
    Question. How much is requested by FTA in fiscal year 1999 on 
similar R&D activities?
    Answer. FTA has requested $5.5 million in fiscal year 1999 on 
similar R&D activities, particularly advanced bus propulsion. The work 
will have specific applications to transit buses and transit services. 
The proposed AVP program would not seek to duplicate these efforts, nor 
could the size of the AVP request accommodate this program and still 
meet the objectives for the variety of other projects needed in the 
greater transportation picture.
    FTA's fiscal year 1999 budget request for similar R&D activities is 
a decrease from the fiscal year 1998 funding level of $8.5 million. 
This is a result of FTA's shift in its R&D focus to address other 
issues, such as transit security and communications-based signaling.
    Question. How will this program be managed at DOT?
    Answer. The Advanced Vehicle Program will be jointly managed by DOT 
and DOE. As currently envisioned, an Advanced Vehicle Program Executive 
Committee (AVPEC), consisting of a senior official from RSPA and a 
senior official from DOE's Office of Transportation Technologies, will 
be the central decision-making body and provide overall program 
direction. The AVPEC will: Define and approve program objectives and 
overall technology focus areas; Direct a joint DOE/DOT program office 
to administer the projects; Review and approve project proposals; and 
Identify appropriate funding source in DOT and DOE. The program will be 
managed by the joint DOE/DOT program office (Advanced Vehicle Program 
Office (AVPO)), which will be appointed by the AVPEC. The AVPO will 
consist of staff within DOE and DOT. The AVPO will solicit and conduct 
technical reviews of proposals from eligible consortia on the 
development, demonstration and deployment of technology areas 
identified by the AVPEC. Contracts will be awarded based on a 
competitive, peer-reviewed selection process. DOT will utilize grants, 
interagency agreements, cooperative agreements and other transactions, 
as authorized by the legislation.
    Question. Who will have ultimate authority--RSPA, FTA, or some 
other entity?
    Answer. The Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy 
will exercise ultimate authority over the Advanced Vehicle Program. The 
Research and Special Programs Administration will be responsible for 
administration of the program within DOT.
    Question. How much is FTA allocating towards similar activities 
during fiscal year 1998? Please break out specific projects and 
associated funding amounts.
    Answer. Approximately $8.5 million is being obligated by FTA in 
fiscal year 1998 on related activities: $4 million--Fuel Cell Transit 
Bus Program; $2 million--Zinc-Air Battery Bus Demonstration; $1.5 
million--Electric Vehicle Program-CALSTART; and $1 million--DUETS.
    Question. What, if any, is the relationship among this initiative, 
the PNGV, and the National ITS Program?
    Answer. Although the Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) is similar to 
the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) in its efforts 
to develop advanced vehicle propulsion systems and related 
technologies, the AVP scope, focus, program management, structure, 
funding mechanisms, partners, and size are all different from that of 
PNGV. The AVP is unique in that it focuses on developing, demonstrating 
and deploying technologies for advanced vehicles, components and 
infrastructure for medium and heavy-duty vehicles. PNGV is focused on 
five-passenger sedan vehicles. The AVP will not seek to duplicate the 
PNGV effort. Similarly, the AVP will not duplicate the ITS focus on 
intelligent vehicle technologies and intelligent transportation 
infrastructure.
    Nevertheless, we will coordinate with the PNGV and ITS programs on 
technologies developed under the AVP that demonstrate potential 
benefits to PNGV and ITS.
               nationwide personal transportation survey
    Question. When was the last survey completed? How much did it cost?
    Answer. The last survey was completed in July 1996. The cost of 
collecting the national sample of 21,120 households was $4,087,283.
    Question. Why is this request not under the policy area?
    Answer. The special effort and resources needed to develop a 
continuous Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and to conduct a 
year 2000 survey in parallel with the Decennial Census will require 
resources beyond the normal budget. It also will be coordinated with 
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, the Federal Transit Administration and other 
Federal Highway Administration offices as a multi modal survey to serve 
the whole department. It was felt that as a unique initiative, the 
research needed special identity and focus.
    Question. Wasn't this initiative previously funded under policy 
research?
    Answer. Forty-nine percent of the cost of collecting the national 
sample was from policy research. Twenty-two percent of the cost was 
funded by Federal Highway Administration resources other than through 
policy research, eighteen percent by the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics, six percent by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, and five percent by the Federal Transit Administration.
                              other issues
    Question. What criteria does the Secretary of Transportation/Office 
of the Administrator for FHWA use to decide which projects will receive 
discretionary funds? (a) Is this criteria different than the criteria 
FHWA staff use for project analysis? (b) How much weight does staff 
input carry in making the final selection?
    Answer. The FHWA staff evaluate individual projects within the 
context of specific discretionary programs, and staff evaluations are 
an important input in the selection process. The Secretary/Office of 
the Administrator make decisions in the broadest context that considers 
not only staff evaluations but also includes consideration of 
geographic balance among all of the discretionary programs, as well as 
congressional direction, guidance and interest.
    Question. Why doesn't the Office of the Administrator document its 
criteria and methodology for selecting projects? (a) How can the Office 
of the Administrator be accountable for its selections if it does not 
document the basis and justification for project selections?
    Answer. The judgement involved in selecting this many projects 
across multiple funding categories does not lend itself to a 
documentable, scientific methodology. The Office of the Administrator 
uses the eligibility criteria and related factors as a starting point 
in the review of candidate projects. Many worthwhile projects compete 
for limited discretionary funds. In 1997, for example, 200 projects 
were selected for funding under eight major discretionary highway 
programs.
    While a recent GAO review showed that the Office of the 
Administrator acted appropriately within the authority granted by 
Congress regarding the discretionary highway programs, a few members of 
Congress said they were troubled by some of the GAO's other findings 
about project selection. Because of the concerns expressed, the 
selection process is being reviewed to ensure that it is working well. 
Of course, reauthorization of ISTEA will determine the structure of the 
discretionary programs beyond fiscal year 1998.
    Question. Why did the Office of the Administrator require staff to 
change the process that they used to evaluate and rank the candidate 
projects?
    Answer. The earlier process only provided the Office of the 
Administrator with staff views on a relatively small subset of projects 
which staff recommended for available funding. It was the desire of the 
Office of the Administrator to have staff views on all submitted 
candidates, unconstrained by the amount of available funds. This then 
allowed the Office of the Administrator to select projects from a broad 
perspective with staff views on each project.
    Question. In its November 1997 report entitled Transportation 
Infrastructure: Review of Project Selection Process for Five FHWA 
Discretionary Programs (GAO/RCED-98-14), GAO reported that under the 
current selection process, as compared with the prior selection 
process, the Office of the Administrator selected a declining 
proportion of projects from the highest priority categories. (a) What 
are the reasons for selecting a smaller proportion of staff priority 
projects? (b) In particular, what are the reasons that half of the 
public lands projects selected for fiscal year 1997 funding came from 
the ``qualified'' category when there were so many other projects in 
the higher priority categories of ``most promising'' and ``promising?''
    Answer. During recent years, the Office of the Administrator relied 
more on its discretion in selecting projects. As discussed, the Office 
of the Administrator takes into account additional criteria beyond 
those considered by the staff. For the public lands highways 
discretionary program, a broad range of activities are eligible for 
funding, and a large number of candidate projects are received. While 
the statutory guidance calls for giving preference to projects which 
are significantly impacted by Federal land and resource management 
activities in States which contain at least three percent of the 
nation's total public lands, there is no legislative guidance besides 
that. This results in more subjective evaluation by the staff, thus 
allowing the Office of the Administrator more discretion when selecting 
projects under this program.
    Question. Did the selection of lower priority projects by the 
Office of the Administrator result in poor transportation investments?
    Answer. None of the selected projects are poor transportation 
investments. All of the projects selected are qualified to receive the 
specific discretionary funds provided, and they all address important 
transportation needs.
                   fhwa regional office restructuring
    Question. What are the major differences between FHWA's current 
regional office responsibilities and the proposed resource centers?
    Answer. Over the years in response to the evolving nature of the 
Federal-State relationship and changed operating conditions, such as 
completion of the Interstate System, the FHWA's regional offices have 
been shifting their emphasis from program oversight and involvement to 
a predominant role of providing advanced program and technical 
assistance to the division offices as well as to State Departments of 
Transportation and other customers. Nevertheless, the regional offices 
retained certain program and administrative approval actions that are 
shared with other DOT elements or involve legal or potentially 
controversial issues. These include certification of metropolitan 
transportation planning processes, approval of final environmental 
impact statements, initiation of motor carrier-related enforcement 
proceedings, approval of State motor carrier safety plans and grants, 
and approval of invitational travel.
    With the pending establishment of Resource Centers, the program and 
administrative authorities currently retained in regional offices will 
be delegated to Division Administrators and Motor Carrier State 
Directors to the fullest extent possible. The delegations of authority 
are being issued in April 1998, as the first step in implementing our 
new field structure. With this action, the FHWA's state-level division 
offices will be empowered to carry out their primary role of program 
delivery without the involvement of an intermediate level office in 
decisionmaking.
    The resource centers will continue some of the existing functions 
of the regional offices, such as technical assistance, intermodal and 
interagency coordination, and training. However, there will be a much 
stronger emphasis on providing advanced levels of program and technical 
assistance. Under the resource center concept, the FHWA will be able to 
cluster its technical experts in a smaller number of offices, thus 
allowing for greater sharing of knowledge and experience among our 
Agency's technical experts. Specific roles and responsibilities 
envisioned for the resource centers are identified below:
  --Provide technical and program assistance to division offices, 
        metropolitan offices, other DOT modes, and State and local 
        agencies.
  --Promote technology deployment and adoption of best practices by 
        State and local agencies.
  --Provide training to division offices, metropolitan offices, State 
        and local agencies, other Federal agencies, and industry 
        partners.
  --Provide leadership in strategic planning and implementation of 
        quality improvements.
  --Provide intermodal and interagency coordination with other Federal 
        agencies.
    In summary, resource centers will differ from regional offices in 
that (1) they will have virtually no programmatic decisionmaking 
authority and (2) they will focus on providing advanced levels of 
technical and program assistance in support of division offices.
    Question. What are the estimated savings in terms of funding and 
staff reductions in establishing FHWA new resource centers?
    Answer. In closing existing regional facilities, FHWA will achieve 
recurring savings in 2 primary categories: (1) office space, and (2) 
data communications. Of course, the Agency also plans significant 
productivity increases under the restructured concept. In addition, 
FHWA will experience one time costs for things such as the relocation 
of employees, severance pay and lump sum annual leave for employees who 
choose to leave FHWA rather than relocate, and logistical activities 
(e.g., movement of equipment/property, site preparation, 
telecommunications) related to the movement of employees, and recurring 
costs for things such as the acquisition of additional space at certain 
locations. At this juncture, however, final decisions on an 
implementation plan and schedule have not yet been made; therefore, it 
is not possible to determine, definitively, when and how much FHWA will 
ultimately save as a result of establishing resource centers.
    Question. Has FHWA requested increased funding as a result of 
creating the new centers?
    Answer. The FHWA will not be requesting additional funding for the 
operational costs of the new resource centers. FHWA will absorb these 
costs within current funding levels. However, in preparation for any 
transition activity that may be required during fiscal year 1999, our 
fiscal year 1999 budget included $2.4 million in personal change of 
station (PCS) funding. These funds are intended to cover costs of 
activities that may be necessary to begin the process of transitioning 
to a new organization.
    Question. What are the differences between the newly established 
FHWA metropolitan centers and the resource centers?
    Answer. The Department of Transportation's three existing 
metropolitan offices located in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Chicago, 
and a fourth office that is being established in New York City are 
actually small intermodal offices staffed by personnel from the Federal 
Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. The FHWA 
staff of these office report to the respective division offices while 
the FTA staff report to their respective regional offices.
    The purpose of the metropolitan offices is to provide intermodal 
service and one-stop shopping for the Department's customers in these 
metropolitan areas. The staff of the offices provide on-the-spot 
technical assistance to local officials in areas of planning, transit 
program delivery, transportation management, and intelligent 
transportation systems, thus enhancing customer service for the 
Department's significant customer base in these metropolitan areas.
    Each of the proposed resource centers will support division offices 
and through them, the metropolitan offices, in their direct customer 
support and program delivery roles by making available expertise in key 
technical areas and by arranging for and providing training. They will 
also provide coordination with the regional offices of other DOT modes 
and Federal agencies.
    Question. What is the value of creating resource centers if 
regional office responsibilities are delegated to FHWA division 
offices?
    Answer. As indicated in the answer to the question above concerning 
the major differences between FHWA's current regional office 
responsibilities and the proposed resource centers, by clustering 
experts in related technical areas, the resource center concept will 
allow the FHWA to greatly strengthen its role of providing technical 
advice and assistance through the division offices to State and local 
governments and others. This role is greatly valued by our customers 
and partners.
                impact of delayed istea reauthorization
    Question. How much of the approximately $9.8 billion available for 
obligation through the extension legislation has been obligated to 
date?
    Answer. See the following table, it lists the obligations to date 
of funds made available through the extension legislation.

Obligations of the $9.8 billion provided by the Surface Transportation 
Extension Act of 1997 (STEA) as of March 31, 1998

        State                                                Obligations

Alabama................................................. $118,397,949.31
Alaska..................................................   45,001,749.94
Arizona.................................................   76,272,850.47
Arkansas................................................   89,445,838.00
California..............................................  561,582,604.51
Colorado................................................  109,249,729.28
Connecticut.............................................  150,153,747.62
Delaware................................................   15,003,816.06
District of Columbia....................................    6,583,767.60
Florida.................................................  315,232,807.00
Georgia.................................................  166,936,254.71
Hawaii..................................................    6,765,889.60
Idaho...................................................   17,010,260.46
Illinois................................................  210,412,051.72
Indiana.................................................  150,034,264.16
Iowa....................................................   73,181,939.72
Kansas..................................................   85,451,682.74
Kentucky................................................   95,303,055.63
Louisiana...............................................  136,591,628.87
Maine...................................................   43,463,795.82
Maryland................................................   97,792,024.83
Massachusetts...........................................  505,136,295.91
Michigan................................................  197,116,061.52
Minnesota...............................................   73,600,250.89
Mississippi.............................................   98,991,439.91
Missouri................................................  147,222,803.39
Montana.................................................   52,146,784.95
Nebraska................................................   61,526,054.50
Nevada..................................................   42,646,686.94
New Hampshire...........................................   55,530,426.57
New Jersey..............................................  235,249,174.05
New Mexico..............................................   67,355,083.85
New York................................................  307,091,977.00
North Carolina..........................................  178,139,893.00
North Dakota............................................   48,290,036.79
Ohio....................................................  230,300,250.07
Oklahoma................................................   88,219,186.19
Oregon..................................................   84,498,975.27
Pennsylvania............................................  440,498,332.64
Rhode Island............................................   30,306,665.39
South Carolina..........................................  107,398,224.84
South Dakota............................................   49,278,592.69
Tennessee...............................................  144,630,252.27
Texas...................................................  540,081,490.58
Utah....................................................   51,602,424.83
Vermont.................................................   44,949,426.86
Virginia................................................  167,531,517.96
Washington..............................................  175,958,985.14
West Virginia...........................................  106,288,550.27
Wisconsin...............................................  115,135,128.56
Wyoming.................................................   47,012,770.00
Puerto Rico.............................................   42,732,172.30
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................7,106,333,623.18

    Question. How do states obligation rates compare under the 
extension legislation, and what factors account for differences in 
states' use of available funds?
    Answer. The following table summarizes State obligation rates under 
the Surface Transportation Extension Act (STEA) through March 31, 1998. 
It is fairly typical for States to have differing rates of obligation, 
not only in unusual years like fiscal year 1998 but also during 
``normal'' years, because of their different strategies in the timing 
and use of Federal funds. Although there are currently wide differences 
in the percentage of available funds each State has used, we expect 
that by May 1 every State will have obligated the maximum amount 
allowable under the STEA.

                                          STATUS OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 OBLIGATION LIMITATION AS OF MARCH 31, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    OBLIGATIONS--OCTOBER 1, 1997
                                                                TOTAL FISCAL YEAR             TO DATE                 UNOBLIGATED
                            STATE                                1998 LIMITATION  -------------------------------     LIMITATION       UNOBLIGATED FUNDS
                                                                                         AMOUNT         PERCENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA......................................................     $174,668,049.00     $118,397,949.31         68      $56,270,099.69     $134,257,429.85
ALASKA.......................................................      100,305,891.00       45,001,749.94         45       55,304,141.06      112,346,312.81
ARIZONA......................................................      144,930,696.00       76,272,850.47         53       68,657,845.53      148,783,495.25
ARKANSAS.....................................................      105,066,081.00       89,445,838.00         85       15,620,243.00       64,039,919.35
CALIFORNIA...................................................      816,974,800.00      561,582,604.51         69      255,392,195.49      753,439,847.06
COLORADO.....................................................      117,865,089.00      109,249,729.28         93        8,615,359.72       71,747,822.86
CONNECTICUT..................................................      175,810,749.00      150,153,747.62         85       25,657,001.38      127,551,191.21
DELAWARE.....................................................       54,181,340.00       15,003,816.06         28       39,177,523.94       64,027,085.21
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.........................................       58,160,323.00        6,583,767.60         11       51,576,555.40       98,723,053.45
FLORIDA......................................................      383,260,924.00      315,232,807.00         82       68,028,117.00      155,235,465.00
GEORGIA......................................................      293,587,590.00      166,936,254.71         57      126,651,335.29      303,968,649.42
HAWAII.......................................................       88,529,048.00        6,765,889.60          8       81,763,158.40      169,778,455.91
IDAHO........................................................       53,075,128.00       17,010,260.46         32       36,064,867.54       67,117,039.46
ILLINOIS.....................................................      325,954,690.00      210,412,051.72         65      115,542,638.28      253,189,484.15
INDIANA......................................................      201,936,469.00      150,034,264.16         74       51,902,204.84      160,007,324.61
IOWA.........................................................      116,135,036.00       73,181,939.72         63       42,953,096.28      105,164,436.66
KANSAS.......................................................      128,516,552.00       85,451,682.74         66       43,064,869.26      107,423,382.17
KENTUCKY.....................................................      154,458,516.00       95,303,055.63         62       59,155,460.37      136,481,511.68
LOUISIANA....................................................      207,074,849.00      136,591,628.87         66       70,483,220.13      221,620,032.48
MAINE........................................................       49,088,131.00       43,463,795.82         89        5,624,335.18       29,956,896.96
MARYLAND.....................................................      159,064,806.00       97,792,024.83         61       61,272,781.17      147,593,754.59
MASSACHUSETTS................................................      528,928,828.00      505,136,295.91         96       23,792,532.09      511,753,891.89
MICHIGAN.....................................................      260,973,140.00      197,116,061.52         76       63,857,078.48      186,281,095.32
MINNESOTA....................................................      178,933,350.00       73,600,250.89         41      105,333,099.11      184,237,336.85
MISSISSIPPI..................................................      103,789,240.00       98,991,439.91         95        4,797,800.09       69,180,671.02
MISSOURI.....................................................      200,357,218.00      147,222,803.39         73       53,134,414.61      148,374,815.34
MONTANA......................................................       88,267,665.00       52,146,784.95         59       36,120,880.05       83,882,949.46
NEBRASKA.....................................................       77,949,526.00       61,526,054.50         79       16,423,471.50       60,254,729.68
NEVADA.......................................................       65,229,965.00       42,646,686.94         65       22,583,278.06       55,586,261.31
NEW HAMPSHIRE................................................       59,526,681.00       55,530,426.57         93        3,996,254.43       25,265,558.12
NEW JERSEY...................................................      274,282,161.00      235,249,174.05         86       39,032,986.95      191,826,131.11
NEW MEXICO...................................................       82,729,105.00       67,355,083.85         81       15,374,021.15       54,406,550.84
NEW YORK.....................................................      517,517,530.00      307,091,977.00         59      210,425,553.00      501,380,719.81
NORTH CAROLINA...............................................      229,754,073.00      178,139,893.00         78       51,614,180.00      182,059,042.34
NORTH DAKOTA.................................................       51,671,563.00       48,290,036.79         93        3,381,526.21       34,348,798.39
OHIO.........................................................      357,221,543.00      230,300,250.07         64      126,921,292.93      324,014,675.27
OKLAHOMA.....................................................      159,481,633.00       88,219,186.19         55       71,262,446.81      155,679,963.38
OREGON.......................................................      103,306,110.00       84,498,975.27         82       18,807,134.73       73,056,699.42
PENNSYLVANIA.................................................      457,120,982.00      440,498,332.64         96       16,622,649.36      239,018,852.02
RHODE ISLAND.................................................       63,023,614.00       30,306,665.39         48       32,716,948.61       61,846,556.76
SOUTH CAROLINA...............................................      179,323,388.00      107,398,224.84         60       71,925,163.16      147,654,807.03
SOUTH DAKOTA.................................................       69,864,831.00       49,278,592.69         71       20,586,238.31       55,639,126.61
TENNESSEE....................................................      196,832,206.00      144,630,252.27         73       52,201,953.73      174,267,162.59
TEXAS........................................................      620,263,467.00      540,081,490.58         87       80,181,976.42      475,214,802.39
UTAH.........................................................       91,646,315.00       51,602,424.83         56       40,043,890.17       80,617,176.00
VERMONT......................................................       60,039,426.00       44,949,426.86         75       15,089,999.14       52,198,250.84
VIRGINIA.....................................................      212,433,686.00      167,531,517.96         79       44,902,168.04      173,062,151.70
WASHINGTON...................................................      205,417,484.00      175,958,985.14         86       29,458,498.86      132,335,798.50
WEST VIRGINIA................................................      120,248,732.00      106,288,550.27         88       13,960,181.73       84,634,595.87
WISCONSIN....................................................      172,787,606.00      115,135,128.56         67       57,652,477.44      157,776,661.24
WYOMING......................................................       55,438,844.00       47,012,770.00         85        8,426,074.00       41,776,806.68
PUERTO RICO..................................................       58,238,000.00       42,732,172.30         73       15,505,827.70       49,280,067.17
AMERICAN SAMOA...............................................        1,907,570.00          198,933.18         10        1,708,636.82        1,708,636.82
GUAM.........................................................        7,630,280.00          161,511.60          2        7,791,791.60        7,791,791.60
NORTHERN MARIANAS............................................        1,907,570.00        1,103,096.51         58          804,473.49          804,473.49
VIRGIN ISLANDS...............................................        7,630,279.00          214,176.79          3        7,416,102.21        7,416,102.21
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TERRITORIES TOTAL......................................       19,075,699.00        1,354,694.88          7       17,721,004.12       17,721,004.12
                                                              ==========================================================================================
      STATE TOTAL............................................    9,830,318,368.00    7,107,688,318.06         72    2,722,630,049.94    8,217,086,299.21
                                                              ==========================================================================================
HEADQUARTERS \1\.............................................        1,044,252.18           75,923.69          7        1,120,175.87       10,384,871.04
FEDERAL LANDS \1\............................................      236,708,133.42       35,711,587.78         15      200,996,545.64      472,462,003.04
ADMINISTRATION...............................................      299,480,213.00      149,740,104.00         50      149,740,109.00  ..................
UNALLOCATED..................................................   11,132,449,033.40  ..................  .........   11,132,449,033.40  ..................
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL LIMITATION.......................................   21,500,000,000.00    7,293,064,086.15         34   14,206,935,913.85    8,702,954,468.29
EXEMPT PROGRAMS..............................................  ..................      511,388,110.87  .........  ..................  ..................
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL OBLIGATIONS......................................  ..................    7,804,452,197.02  .........  ..................  ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SEE ATTACHED BREAKDOWN.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      OBLIGATIONS--OCTOBER 1, 1997
                                                                   TOTAL FISCAL YEAR             TO DATE               UNOBLIGATED
                              STATE                                 1998 LIMITATION  ------------------------------     LIMITATION     UNOBLIGATED FUNDS
                                                                                            AMOUNT        PERCENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL LANDS:
    DIVISION 15..................................................     $29,002,839.58      $3,660,243.82         13     $25,342,595.76     $57,743,421.74
    DIVISION 16..................................................      20,915,275.46       5,782,329.14         28      15,132,946.32      52,082,341.41
    DIVISION 17..................................................      33,272,853.38       5,033,496.01         15      28,239,357.37      47,943,978.13
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL...................................................      83,190,968.42      14,476,068.97         17      68,714,899.45     157,769,741.28
                                                                  ======================================================================================
    FOREST SERVICE...............................................       3,392,165.00         867,424.81         26       2,524,740.19       8,307,141.77
    PARK SERVICE.................................................      13,000,000.00       2,388,295.00         18      10,611,705.00      79,344,384.62
    BIA..........................................................     136,775,000.00      18,020,736.00         13     118,754,264.00     224,019,440.37
    BLM..........................................................         350,000.00          40,937.00         12         390,937.00       3,021,295.00
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL...................................................     153,517,165.00      21,235,518.81         14     132,281,646.19     314,692,261.76
                                                                  ======================================================================================
      FEDERAL LANDS TOTAL........................................     236,708,133.42      35,711,587.78         15     200,996,545.64     472,462,003.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. To what extent are states transferring their unobligated 
balances between programs? What programs are temporarily gaining and 
losing funds through transfers of unobligated balances?
    Answer. See the following chart.

           TRANSFERS OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 1997 (STEA)--FISCAL YEAR 1998 TO DATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Fiscal
             Date                year of            State            From: Appn.    To: Appn.    Amount subject
                                  funds                                 code          code       to restoration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04/06/98......................  1998.....  ALABAMA................  Q21.........  Q24.........     $1,729,515.00
04/06/98......................  1998.....  ALABAMA................  Q22.........  Q24.........      3,392,685.00
04/06/98......................  1998.....  ALABAMA................  Q23-035.....  Q24.........      2,612,865.00
04/06/98......................  1998.....  ALABAMA................  Q23-067.....  Q24.........      1,263,905.00
04/06/98......................  1998.....  ALABAMA................  Q23-109.....  Q24.........        135,618.00
04/06/98......................  1998.....  ALABAMA................  Q23-115.....  Q24.........        882,082.00
04/06/98......................  1998.....  ALABAMA................  Q28.........  Q24.........        800,434.00
04/06/98......................  1998.....  ALABAMA................  Q40.........  Q24.........      1,282,206.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     12,099,310.00
                                                                                               =================
01/08/98......................  1997.....  ALASKA.................  33D.........  81..........      1,908,823.00
                                                                                               =================
02/12/98......................  1995.....  ARIZONA................  33B.........  33D.........      4,946,623.00
02/12/98......................  1996.....  ARIZONA................  33B.........  33D.........      5,609,155.00
02/12/98......................  1997.....  ARIZONA................  33B.........  33D.........      1,444,222.00
04/20/98......................  1998.....  ARIZONA................  Q01.........  33D.........      2,000,000.00
04/20/98......................  1998.....  ARIZONA................  Q01.........  315.........      8,000,000.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     22,000,000.00
                                                                                               =================
04/22/98......................  1997.....  ARKANSAS...............  33B.........  118.........      7,308,708.00
04/22/98......................  1998.....  ARKANSAS...............  Q22.........  118.........      1,691,292.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............      9,000,000.00
                                                                                               =================
03/25/98......................  1998.....  DIST. OF COLUMBIA......  Q10.........  Q24.........      4,249,822.00
03/25/98......................  1998.....  DIST. OF COLUMBIA......  Q40.........  Q24.........      1,287,972.00
03/25/98......................  1998.....  DIST. OF COLUMBIA......  Q05.........  Q24.........      4,638,553.00
03/25/98......................  1998.....  DIST. OF COLUMBIA......  Q21.........  Q22.........        397,542.00
03/25/98......................  1998.....  DIST. OF COLUMBIA......  Q26.........  Q22.........         28,345.00
03/25/98......................  1998.....  DIST. OF COLUMBIA......  Q27.........  Q22.........         28,345.00
03/25/98......................  1998.....  DIST. OF COLUMBIA......  Q28.........  Q22.........        222,836.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     10,853,415.00
                                                                                               =================
02/19/98......................  1996.....  IDAHO..................  320.........  315.........      4,141,702.00
02/19/98......................  1997.....  IDAHO..................  320.........  315.........      1,881,442.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............      6,023,144.00
                                                                                               =================
04/07/98......................  1998.....  ILLINOIS...............  Q24.........  04M.........     21,000,000.00
                                                                                               =================
03/26/98......................  1995.....  INDIANA................  320.........  33D.........      9,532,621.00
03/26/98......................  1996.....  INDIANA................  320.........  33D.........      9,370,054.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     18,902,675.00
                                                                                               =================
04/13/98......................  1997.....  IOWA...................  118.........  33D.........     15,747,594.00
04/13/98......................  1996.....  IOWA...................  118.........  33D.........      4,252,406.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     20,000,000.00
                                                                                               =================
04/14/98......................  1997.....  KANSAS.................  33E.........  315.........     12,616,924.00
04/14/98......................  1996.....  KANSAS.................  33E.........  315.........      2,383,076.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     15,000,000.00
                                                                                               =================
02/12/98......................  1996.....  MAINE..................  33B.........  04M.........        757,733.00
02/12/98......................  1997.....  MAINE..................  33B.........  04M.........      3,242,267.00
02/12/98......................  1996.....  MAINE..................  320.........  315.........      2,220,467.00
02/12/98......................  1997.....  MAINE..................  320.........  315.........      4,779,533.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     11,000,000.00
                                                                                               =================
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q01.........  Q05.........     12,848,367.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q10.........  Q05.........      7,200,000.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q40.........  Q24.........      8,546,272.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q21.........  Q24.........      1,434,707.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q25.........  Q24.........      1,326,144.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q26.........  Q24.........        205,450.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q27.........  Q24.........        205,450.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q28.........  Q24.........        723,982.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q20.........  Q24.........      1,518,336.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q23-008.....  Q24.........      2,774,454.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q23-012.....  Q24.........      3,689,916.00
01/26/98......................  1998.....  MARYLAND...............  Q23-063.....  Q24.........         26,811.00
04/13/98......................  1997.....  MARYLAND...............  320.........  315.........     15,000,000.00
04/13/98......................  1997.....  MARYLAND...............  320.........  33D.........     14,000,000.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     69,499,889.00
                                                                                               =================
02/12/98......................  1997.....  MISSISSIPPI............  33B.........  33D.........      7,000,000.00
02/12/98......................  1996.....  MISSISSIPPI............  33B.........  33D.........      5,000,000.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     12,000,000.00
                                                                                               =================
03/31/98......................  1997.....  MISSOURI...............  320.........  04M.........      5,000,000.00
03/31/98......................  1997.....  MISSOURI...............  33B.........  33D.........     12,150,726.00
03/31/98......................  1996.....  MISSOURI...............  33B.........  33D.........      7,849,274.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     25,000,000.00
                                                                                               =================
03/31/98......................  1996.....  MONTANA................  33B.........  315.........      1,366,832.00
03/31/98......................  1997.....  MONTANA................  33B.........  315.........      5,133,168.00
03/31/98......................  1996.....  MONTANA................  320.........  315.........      1,720,467.00
03/31/98......................  1997.....  MONTANA................  320.........  315.........      4,779,533.00
03/31/98......................  1998.....  MONTANA................  Q21.........  Q05.........        699,784.00
03/31/98......................  1998.....  MONTANA................  Q22.........  Q05.........      1,518,150.00
03/31/98......................  1998.....  MONTANA................  Q27.........  Q10.........        238,579.00
03/31/98......................  1998.....  MONTANA................  Q40.........  Q10.........      1,416,464.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     16,872,977.00
                                                                                               =================
01/14/98......................  1997.....  NEW HAMPSHIRE..........  320.........  04M.........      3,263,481.66
02/23/98......................  1996.....  NEW HAMPSHIRE..........  320.........  315.........      3,483,949.00
02/23/98......................  1997.....  NEW HAMPSHIRE..........  320.........  315.........      1,516,051.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............   8,263,481.66.00
                                                                                               =================
02/19/98......................  1998.....  NEW JERSEY.............  Q24.........  320.........      3,600,000.00
                                                                                               =================
02/12/98......................  1998.....  NEW MEXICO.............  Q21.........  Q20.........      1,093,157.00
02/12/98......................  1998.....  NEW MEXICO.............  Q22.........  Q20.........      1,804,067.00
02/12/98......................  1998.....  NEW MEXICO.............  Q01.........  Q20.........      2,500,854.00
02/12/98......................  1998.....  NEW MEXICO.............  Q01.........  Q25.........      8,336,947.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     13,735,025.00
                                                                                               =================
01/14/98......................  1997.....  NO. DAKOTA.............  33B.........  04M.........      2,100,000.00
01/14/98......................  1996.....  NO. DAKOTA.............  33B.........  04M.........      2,700,000.00
01/14/98......................  1998.....  NO. DAKOTA.............  Q22.........  Q01.........      1,169,634.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............      5,969,634.00
                                                                                               =================
01/14/98......................  1998.....  OKLAHOMA...............  Q01.........  Q05.........     10,001,790.00
01/14/98......................  1997.....  OKLAHOMA...............  04M.........  33D.........     15,500,000.00
01/14/98......................  1997.....  OKLAHOMA...............  33B.........  33D.........      8,000,000.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     33,501,790.00
                                                                                               =================
02/05/98......................  1996.....  PENNSYLVANIA...........  42..........  04M.........     40,000,000.00
02/05/98......................  1996.....  PENNSYLVANIA...........  42..........  315.........     60,000,000.00
02/05/98......................  1996.....  PENNSYLVANIA...........  42..........  33D.........     79,000,000.00
03/16/98......................  1996.....  PENNSYLVANIA...........  42..........  33D.........     60,000,000.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............    239,000,000.00
                                                                                               =================
04/09/98......................  1997.....  RHODE ISLAND...........  117.........  315.........      1,886,590.00
04/09/98......................  1996.....  RHODE ISLAND...........  117.........  33D.........      1,600,440.00
04/09/98......................  1995.....  RHODE ISLAND...........  117.........  33D.........      2,418,936.00
04/09/98......................  1994.....  RHODE ISLAND...........  117.........  315.........      2,113,410.00
04/09/98......................  1997.....  RHODE ISLAND...........  320.........  315.........      3,000,000.00
04/09/98......................  1996.....  RHODE ISLAND...........  33E.........  33D.........      2,780,894.00
04/09/98......................  1997.....  RHODE ISLAND...........  33E.........  33D.........      3,199,729.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     16,999,999.00
                                                                                               =================
01/07/98......................  1998.....  TENNEESSEE.............  Q10.........  Q01.........     13,442,672.00
                                                                                               =================
02/05/98......................  1997.....  TEXAS..................  320.........  33D.........     91,000,000.00
02/05/98......................  1997.....  TEXAS..................  33B.........  33D.........     41,000,000.00
02/05/98......................  1996.....  TEXAS..................  320.........  315.........     82,500,000.00
02/05/98......................  1996.....  TEXAS..................  33B.........  04M.........     29,000,000.00
02/05/98......................  1998.....  TEXAS..................  Q40.........  Q05.........     26,119,982.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............    269,619,982.00
                                                                                               =================
01/08/98......................  1997.....  VIRGINIA...............  33B.........  33D.........     11,482,718.00
01/08/98......................  1996.....  VIRGINIA...............  33B.........  33D.........      1,017,282.00
02/19/98......................  1997.....  VIRGINIA...............  3AA.........  33D.........      4,428,959.00
02/19/98......................  1997.....  VIRGINIA...............  33P.........  33D.........      2,445,042.00
02/19/98......................  1997.....  VIRGINIA...............  33A.........  33D.........      3,733,825.00
02/19/98......................  1997.....  VIRGINIA...............  33M.........  33D.........        895,184.00
02/19/98......................  1997.....  VIRGINIA...............  33N.........  33D.........        645,497.00
02/19/98......................  1996.....  VIRGINIA...............  33P.........  33D.........        497,286.00
02/19/98......................  1996.....  VIRGINIA...............  33A.........  33D.........        578,922.00
02/19/98......................  1996.....  VIRGINIA...............  33M.........  33D.........        298,161.00
02/19/98......................  1996.....  VIRGINIA...............  33N.........  33D.........      1,365,602.00
02/19/98......................  1995.....  VIRGINIA...............  33N.........  33D.........         51,934.00
02/20/98......................  1997.....  VIRGINIA...............  320.........  315.........     12,100,000.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     39,540,412.00
                                                                                               =================
02/20/98......................  1997.....  WEST VIRGINIA..........  117.........  33D.........      7,368,000.00
02/20/98......................  1996.....  WEST VIRGINIA..........  117.........  118.........      6,163,418.00
02/20/98......................  1995.....  WEST VIRGINIA..........  117.........  33D.........      7,819,000.00
02/20/98......................  1994.....  WEST VIRGINIA..........  117.........  33D.........      7,990,000.00
02/20/98......................  1993.....  WEST VIRGINIA..........  117.........  118.........      8,604,794.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     37,945,212.00
                                                                                               =================
02/12/98......................  1995.....  WISCONSIN..............  320.........  114.........      5,386,757.00
02/12/98......................  1996.....  WISCONSIN..............  320.........  114.........     10,433,638.00
02/12/98......................  1997.....  WISCONSIN..............  320.........  114.........      5,179,605.00
02/12/98......................  1993.....  WISCONSIN..............  33B.........  33D.........      1,593,000.00
02/12/98......................  1994.....  WISCONSIN..............  33B.........  33D.........     10,891,000.00
02/12/98......................  1995.....  WISCONSIN..............  33B.........  33D.........     10,797,000.00
02/12/98......................  1996.....  WISCONSIN..............  33B.........  33D.........     10,624,000.00
02/12/98......................  1997.....  WISCONSIN..............  33B.........  33D.........     11,748,000.00
02/12/98......................  1997.....  WISCONSIN..............  33B.........  04M.........      1,000,000.00
02/12/98......................  1997.....  WISCONSIN..............  33B.........  33C-014.....      1,000,000.00
02/12/98......................  1997.....  WISCONSIN..............  33B.........  33E.........      1,000,000.00
02/12/98......................  1997.....  WISCONSIN..............  33B.........  118.........      1,000,000.00
                                                                                               -----------------
      Total...................  .........  .......................  ............  ............     70,653,000.00
                                                                                               =================
      GRAND TOTAL.............  .........  .......................  ............  ............  1,023,431,440.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Will states be able to obligate federal highway dollars 
after the extension legislation expires on May 1, 1998?
    Answer. States will only be able to re-obligate previously 
obligated funds after May 1, 1998.
    Section 2(e)(3)(A) of Public Law 105-130, the Surface 
Transportation Extension Act of 1997, prohibits states from obligating 
any funds for any Federal-aid highway program project after May 1, 
1998. Subsection (B) provides the exception whereby a State may 
obligate previously obligated funds after May 1, 1998.
    Question. What will be the impact on ongoing and planned highway 
construction after May 1, 1998, if no new federal highway authorization 
legislation is passed?
    Answer. States are already limiting their programs for the year 
because of the lack of assured Federal funds. If obligations of 
Federal-aid highway funds are cut off after May 1, as required by the 
Surface Transportation Extension Act, there will be profound impacts on 
the approaching construction season. The negative impacts would be 
especially severe in the Northeastern and upper Midwestern states 
because of their short construction seasons--some Northern States could 
lose an entire construction season.
    According to AASHTO's ``Survey on the Impacts of Delay in Renewing 
ISTEA,'' February 1998, any delay in reauthorization could have serious 
repercussions.
  --In the third quarter, 1,402 projects valued at $2.539 billion will 
        be affected. If no bill is enacted by July 1, an additional 
        1,451 projects valued at $2.686 billion will be affected.
  --Although many States are using advance construction and State-only 
        funding in the hopes of converting when funds become available, 
        further delays may create serious cash-flow problems and impact 
        more than transportation.
  --Long term planning has been completely disrupted.
  --Substantial reprogramming was necessary to advance ready-to-go 
        projects to meet the May 1 deadline--construction projects 
        shifted in order to complete as much work as possible. Some 
        lower priority projects were advanced because they were ready 
        to move, which may delay higher priority projects for another 
        year.
    The longer reauthorization is delayed, the more the situation will 
intensify, until there will not be time to use the entire $21.5 billion 
obligation limitation contained in the 1998 DOT Appropriations Act 
before it lapses on October 1.
    By the end of July, administrative funds, which the FHWA has been 
stretching as far as possible, will run out. With the furlough of 3,600 
FHWA employees across the country, FHWA will stop paying bills, and 
reimbursing States for Federal-aid projects. Construction contractors 
and their suppliers will suffer economic losses--smaller ones may be 
forced to declare bankruptcy.
    Without FHWA staff, the program will be slowed beyond the immediate 
impact of no obligations, no project approvals, and no payments. 
Without FHWA staff, projects cannot continue to advance through the 
pipeline. Thus, even when funds are eventually made available, spending 
those funds will be relatively slow as FHWA catches up with the backlog 
of work related to project development.
                          funding flexibility
    Question. Why has there been a relatively low rate of funds 
transferred among the NHS, Interstate Maintenance, and bridge 
programs?--Under ISTEA, three major programs--the National Highway 
System (NHS), the interstate maintenance program, and the highway 
bridge replacement and rehabilitation program--received about $48 
billion, or 40 percent of the overall reauthorization. The states have 
the flexibility to transfer funds between these three programs, 
allowing them to respond better to their differing needs or priorities. 
From October 1, 1991, through June 30, 1997, GAO reported that states 
transferred a total of $3.4 billion, or only 8 percent of the funds 
they could have transferred, with the approval of the Secretary, from 
the three major highway programs.
    Answer. We believe transferability has been relatively low for the 
following reasons. First, the needs for NHS, IM and Bridge project 
funding have been much greater than the resources available through 
these programs. States are reluctant to transfer from one category to 
another when there are demonstrated needs in all categories, unless 
they are placing more emphasis on a particular area to meet their 
current priorities. In those cases they make selected use of the 
transferability under Title 23. Second, current law permits a great 
deal of flexibility in the use of funds within program categories often 
making it unnecessary to shift funds from one category to another.
    Question. Although the overall transfer rate is relatively low, how 
many states have elected to transfer funds among the NHS, Interstate 
Maintenance and bridge programs?
    Answer. See the following chart.

  TRANSFER AMONG THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEMS, INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE AND BRIDGE PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR 1992 TO
                                      FISCAL YEAR 1998 AS OF APRIL 22, 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    TRANSFER FROM:                       TRANSFER TO:
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  STATE                      INTERSTATE      BRIDGE REPL AND  NATIONAL HIGHWAY     INTERSTATE
                                             MAINTENANCE          REHAB              SYS           MAINTENANCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA.................................    $10,239,336.00  ................    $10,239,336.00  ................
ARIZONA.................................     21,534,507.00  ................     21,534,507.00  ................
CALIFORNIA..............................    138,221,845.00  ................    138,221,845.00  ................
DELAWARE................................  ................     $3,819,150.00      3,819,150.00  ................
HAWAII..................................      5,469,619.00  ................      5,469,619.00  ................
MAINE...................................      2,728,212.00  ................      2,728,212.00  ................
MARYLAND................................     29,598,367.00     28,675,000.00     58,273,367.00  ................
MASSACHUSETTS...........................  ................     69,533,624.00     69,533,624.00  ................
MINNESOTA...............................     10,515,814.00  ................     10,515,814.00  ................
MISSOURI................................  ................     33,364,786.00     33,364,786.00  ................
MONTANA.................................     26,535,280.00      4,000,000.00     30,535,280.00  ................
NEW HAMPSHIRE...........................      1,000,000.00  ................      1,000,000.00  ................
OKLAHOMA................................     10,001,790.00  ................     10,001,790.00  ................
OREGON..................................      8,236,425.00  ................      8,236,425.00  ................
PENNSYLVANIA............................  ................    403,058,307.00    403,058,307.00  ................
RHODE ISLAND............................      6,293,693.00      9,855,777.00     16,149,470.00  ................
TENNESSEE...............................  ................     13,442,672.00  ................    $13,442,672.00
TEXAS...................................    283,818,190.49  ................    283,818,190.49  ................
VIRGINIA................................     12,756,758.00  ................     12,756,758.00  ................
WASHINGTON..............................     11,706,000.00  ................     11,706,000.00  ................
PUERTO RICO.............................      7,371,687.00  ................      7,371,687.00  ................
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................    575,788,187.49    565,749,316.00  1,128,094,831.49     13,442,672.00
                                         =======================================================================
      TOTAL TRANSFER....................           1,141,537,503.49
                                                   1,141,537,503.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       state infrastructure banks
    Question. How many states are SIB designees? Why did some states 
elect not to create a SIB?
    Answer. There are thirty-nine States participating in the SIB pilot 
program. As a result of the November 1995 NHS Designation Act, the 
Secretary designated the first ten pilot States: Arizona, Florida, 
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, California and 
Missouri. As a result of the Fiscal Year 1997 DOT Appropriations Act, 
the Secretary was able to designate additional States. In June 1997, 
the additional twenty-nine States were announced: Alaska, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North 
Carolina, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Puerto 
Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, 
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Since the pilot program was expanded, FHWA has 
been contacted by Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, and Nevada 
expressing their desire to join the pilot. Kansas is pursuing State 
enabling legislation. The SIB concept is a departure from traditional 
grant reimbursement and some States wanted to see the results of other 
States' SIB implementation before establishing a SIB themselves.
    Question. How many states have operational SIB's that are currently 
financing transportation projects?
    Answer. Six States have initiated loan activity: Arizona, Florida, 
Missouri, Ohio, and Texas. Thirty States have entered into cooperative 
agreements with FHWA and/or FTA and are establishing their banks' 
administrative structures.
    Question. How many projects have received SIB financial assistance 
to date?
    Answer. As of February 15, 1998, twenty-four projects had received 
loans or had executed loan agreements totaling $298 million supporting 
$1.8 billion in total project construction.
    Question. What types of projects are being funded through SIB's, 
and how, if at all, do these project differ from typical grant financed 
highway projects?
    Answer. That is one of the questions we are examining as the States 
implement this pilot. For a SIB to remain a viable financial entity, it 
must receive repayments for the loans it provides. Of the twenty-four 
projects that are currently being assisted by SIB's, two projects are 
repaying their loans with tolls. The remaining twenty-two projects are 
repaying their loans with dedicated sales taxes, State and local gas 
taxes, and future Federal funds.
    Question. What percentage of states highway projects are amenable 
to SIB financing?
    Answer. That is one of the questions we are examining as the States 
implement this pilot. For a SIB to remain a viable financial entity it 
must receive repayments for the loans it provides. Of the twenty-one 
projects that are currently being assisted by SIB's, two projects are 
repaying their loans with tolls. The remaining nineteen projects are 
repaying their loans with dedicated sales taxes, State and local gas 
taxes, and future Federal funds.
    Question. Why have states been slow to obligate their program funds 
to capitalize a SIB, but relatively quick to obligate the $150 million 
provided through the fiscal year 1997 appropriation for SIB's?
    Answer. States obligated their SIB capitalization funds allocated 
as a result of the Fiscal Year 1997 DOT Appropriations Act relatively 
quickly because those general funds were outside of the obligation 
ceiling. The vast majority of SIB pilot States have indicated plans to 
obligate their regularly apportioned fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 
1997 Federal-aid highway funds for SIB capitalization, but have been 
slow to obligate those funds in fiscal year 1998 due to uncertainty 
regarding their overall Federal-aid highway funding. As of February 15, 
1998, the amount of regular Federal-aid highway funds that have been 
obligated was $182 million and the amount of Fiscal Year 1997 DOT 
Appropriation Act general funds that have been obligated was $144 
million (including amounts obligated for SIB highway accounts at $127 
million and SIB transit accounts at $17 million).
                        alameda corridor project
    Question. Will MTA be able to provide the project the funding it 
has promised? (a) If the project is not able to get MTA funding, what 
impact will it have on the (1) cost of the project, (2) schedule of the 
project and (3) the federal loan?
    Answer. We have reviewed the funding agreement executed by LACMTA 
and the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) and authorized 
by the boards of both organizations. This legally binding agreement 
requires LACMTA to make a capital contribution of $347.3 million for 
the Alameda Corridor project. The LACMTA is providing funds from the 
following sources: (1) $8.6 million committed via an MOU in January 
1994 from local (Prop. C25) funds; (2) $80 million committed via an MOU 
in February 1996 from Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) 
and State Transportation System Management (STSM) funds; (3) $40 
million committed via an MCR Master Agreement in October 1996, from 
State Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) funds; and (4) $218.7 million 
committed via an MTA Funding Agreement in September 1997 from local 
(Prop. C25) and State Long Range Plan funds.
    A shortfall in LACMTA funding, in the unlikely event one were to 
occur, would probably not have a significant effect on the project 
cost, the project schedule, or the federal loan.
    The local (Prop. C25) funds for preliminary design, as well as most 
of the RSTP, STSM, and FCR funds, have already been received by ACTA. 
The LACMTA plans to issue bonds backed by local (Prop. C25) sales tax 
revenues to fund the remaining $218.7 million commitment. If necessary, 
those funds could be supplemented with state and other contingent 
sources to cover any shortfall. In such a case, the federal loan would 
not be adversely affected.
    Question. What is the outlook for obtaining the $866 million of 
revenue bonds through the financial markets?
    Answer. ACTA's upcoming issuance of revenue bonds is scheduled for 
late 1998. While the exact amount and structure of the issuance have 
yet to be finalized, it is likely the bonds will have strong demand 
when offered. The project has been followed closely by the rating 
agencies, bond insurers, investment bankers, and institutional buyers. 
There have been a number of media articles and trade reports related to 
ACTA and the importance of the project. A recent unsolicited Credit 
Week report by Standard & Poor's, one of the three major rating 
agencies, highlights the strength and viability of the project. Another 
report, prepared by A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., a large regional 
brokerage firm, characterizes the national scope and benefit of the 
project and highlights the sound financial plan. When offered by ACTA's 
financing team, lead by PaineWebber with Goldman Sachs, the revenue 
bonds are expected to generate a great deal of interest and sell 
promptly.
    Question. How is FHWA overseeing the Alameda Corridor project and 
the federal loan? (a) How is FHWA using this information to improve/
change its program?
    Answer. Delegations by the Secretary of Transportation and 
provisions of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 
have resulted in the following assignment of key responsibilities 
related to the administration of the Alameda Corridor loan:
    FHWA, which negotiated and signed the loan agreement on behalf of 
the Department, is responsible for: (a) carrying out any loan 
modifications or other DOT approvals; (b) monitoring project status and 
ensuring compliance with the loan agreement; and (c) performing credit 
assessments and subsidy re-estimates as required under the Federal 
Credit Reform Act (FCRA) of 1990.
    FRA, which received the subsidy appropriation that funded the loan, 
is responsible for: (a) carrying out cash flow transactions, including 
loan disbursements, loan repayments, and Treasury borrowings; and (b) 
performing budgeting and accounting as required under FCRA and relevant 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines.
    The FHWA California Division Office has primary responsibility for 
producing a semi-annual project status and credit assessment report. 
The purpose of this report is threefold: (1) to provide DOT with an 
oversight tool for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the loan 
agreement; (2) to monitor the overall status of the project; and (3) to 
allow DOT and OMB to periodically assess the sufficiency of the budget 
authority that was appropriated to cover the estimated capital charges 
(subsidy costs) of default risks and interest subsidies associated with 
the loan.
    Since major projects of the scope of the Alameda Corridor typically 
involve various construction and financing challenges, and since the 
provision of credit assistance necessarily entails some measure of 
risk, we believe the delegations of modal responsibility and the 
periodic assessments of project status and credit risk are prudent 
oversight steps. Although these actions by themselves cannot guarantee 
ultimate project success or loan repayment, they will help ensure the 
security of the federal government's investment and the realization of 
anticipated public benefits.
    The information will prove very useful in monitoring other high-
profile, high-cost projects. FHWA is gaining valuable experience in 
administering non-traditional capital projects and financial 
assistance. The information contained in the semi-annual project status 
and credit assessment report is being used to help establish a process 
for reviewing financial plans of so-called mega projects costing over 
$1 billion.
    Question. Have other projects requested federal loans from FHWA 
similar to the Alameda Corridor's $400 million loan, or similar to the 
lines of credit made available to other California toll projects? (a) 
If so, please describe these projects and their anticipated costs. If 
not, please indicate where FHWA expects such projects to develop.
    Answer. Although a number of project sponsors have expressed 
interest in credit instruments, none has formally requested such 
assistance.
    A recent report prepared for FHWA called Federal Credit for Surface 
Transportation: Exploring Concepts and Issues provides an illustrative 
list of surface transportation projects whose scale, financial 
structure, and economic importance are indicative of the types of 
projects that a federal credit program would be designed to serve. 
Project names, descriptions, locations, and total cost estimates were 
obtained from state agencies, industry sources, and transportation 
publications. All 50 states were contacted and given an opportunity to 
suggest projects for inclusion in the report. The report identifies a 
total of 31 projects collectively representing nearly $50 billion in 
capital investment. One potential example is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge 
project in Virginia and Maryland. Others include the Foothill-South 
Transportation Corridor toll road project in Southern California, the 
Florida Overland Express high-speed rail project, the Farley /Penn 
Station rail passenger terminal project in New York City, and t he 
Tacoma Narrows Bridge project in Washington State.
    Question. What issues did the Alameda Corridor project loan and 
DOT's initial proposed Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Act raise from 
other parts of the federal government? How have these concerns impacted 
the possibility for giving similar loans in the future?
    Answer. Concerns raised within the Administration over direct 
lending techniques are identified and discussed below:
    Concern #1.--By making a direct loan, the federal government could 
have an implied guarantee on the project's capital markets debt 
(publicly-issued revenue bonds).
    Discussion: Neither the ratings on the capital markets debt 
(generally BBB for start-up projects) nor the investors' credit 
analyses reflect any implicit federal guarantee. Under a direct loan 
program, both DOT and the capital markets investors would be creditors 
of the project.
    Concern #2.--A federal credit program could result in additional 
tax-exempt debt issuance, which has a tax expenditure (revenue loss) 
associated with it.
    Discussion: Most of the large projects that would qualify for 
assistance under a credit program probably would be financed in any 
event at some point (albeit perhaps more slowly and at greater cost) 
with 100 percent tax-exempt debt, so the marginal issuance would be 
minor. Also, having the federal government fund a direct loan for up to 
a third of project costs would actually reduce the amount of tax-exempt 
debt issued by a corresponding amount. Finally, in comparison to the 
existing Federal-aid highway grant program (in which states and 
localities commonly issue tax-exempt debt to provide matching funds), 
there is little evidence that a credit-based program would encourage or 
credit-enhance tax-exempt debt to any greater extent than similar 
grant-based programs.
    Concern #3.--The federal government should not be subordinate to 
other lenders.
    Discussion: Allowing payment deferrals (that accrue with interest) 
for at least the first 10 years or ``ramp-up'' of operation is 
essential if credit assistance such as the Alameda Corridor loan is to 
add value to the project's financial plan. A junior-lien loan provides 
the project with much-needed flexibility to deal with unexpected 
shortfalls in net revenues. And over the long-term, the risk of non-
payment should not be appreciably higher. Fitch-IBCA, one of the major 
bond rating agencies, has concluded that for start-up toll road project 
finances, flexible junior-lien debt has the same likelihood of ultimate 
repayment over the long-term as senior debt. The federal government is 
uniquely positioned to be a patient, flexible investor in capital 
projects that will generate major public benefits.
    Concern #4.--The credit risk is too difficult to assess on large-
scale surface transportation projects.
    Discussion: There is general agreement that each project's credit 
profile is unique and that credit evaluation can be complex. Under a 
direct federal lending program, the credit assessment should be out-
source to recognized independent experts like the major bond rating 
agencies. The rating agencies would determine an indicative rating 
category (e.g., BBB) for each project, and then assess a loan loss 
reserve factor similar to the capital charges imposed on municipal bond 
insurers.
    These concerns were addressed in DOT's NEXTEA reauthorization 
proposal. The proposed Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement 
program mitigates these concerns by providing grants, not direct loans, 
to fund debt service reserve accounts to help enable projects to secure 
external debt financing.
        transportation infrastructure credit enhancement program
    Question. Why did you decide to request funding for a grant program 
rather than a loan program?
    Answer. Although the Administration recognizes that large projects 
of national significance require additional funding assistance, it 
acknowledges that direct federal credit assistance--such as proposed in 
the fiscal year 1998 budget--involves a number of technical issues. Of 
particular concern are: (1) how to accurately assess or score the 
budgetary or subsidy cost of credit assistance provided to large, one-
of-a-kind, start-up transportation projects; and (2) whether a federal 
standby line of credit available to cover potential revenue shortfalls 
in the early years of project operation can be interpreted as an 
indirect federal guarantee of tax-exempt debt, which is prohibited 
under section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.
    Until some of those various budgetary and tax issues have been 
satisfactorily resolved, the Administration believes that a grant-based 
credit enhancement program would be a prudent first step in developing 
an effective funding mechanism for such national investments involving 
public-private partnerships.
    DOT will continue to work with both public and private partners--
including other federal agencies, state and local officials, and the 
private sector--to evaluate the effectiveness of existing funding tools 
and assess the potential of new funding tools, including direct federal 
credit assistance.
    Question. How many large, nationally significant projects can a 
grant program realistically fund?
    Answer. It depends on the leveraging factor, which is a function of 
project size, capital structure, and credit-worthiness. As envisioned 
in the Department's NEXTEA proposal and fiscal year 1999 budget 
request, the credit enhancement program would authorize the Secretary 
to make grants to project sponsors in order to capitalize ``Revenue 
Stabilization Funds'' in amounts up to 20 percent of project costs. The 
funds would represent debt service reserve accounts for debt-financed 
projects, and could be drawn upon if net project revenues were 
insufficient to meet annual debt service. If the Revenue Stabilization 
Funds were used to secure junior-lien bonds financing 33 percent of 
project costs, and if the reserves equaled roughly 20 percent of the 
issue size, the program could feasibly achieve a 15:1 leveraging ratio 
in terms of capital investment induced to budgetary resources consumed. 
Thus, under these optimal assumptions, the proposed $100 million per 
year of grant funding could support up to $1.5 billion per year in 
capital investment. Assuming an average project size of $500 million 
would result in three major projects per year that could be supported 
by the grant program.
    Question. Do you expect more applications for funds than available 
funds? (a) If so, who will make the final selection of the projects 
that will receive federal support under this program after a pool of 
projects have met the NEXTEA criteria?
    Answer. Based on preliminary inquiries to DOT from the states and 
other potential participants, we do.
    In order to receive assistance under the proposed credit 
enhancement program, projects must meet certain threshold criteria 
relating to project size ($100 million or 50 percent of a state's most 
recent annual federal-aid apportionment); access to user charges or 
other dedicated revenue streams; inclusion in a state's transportation 
improvement program; ability to provide benefits of national 
significance; and demonstrated need (i.e., it cannot otherwise obtain 
financing on reasonable terms).
    Qualified projects meeting the initial threshold eligibility 
criteria would then be evaluated by the Secretary based on a 
qualitative analysis of their credit-worthiness, degree of leveraging 
private capital, use of innovative technologies, and other factors.
    Question. How will this program differ from FHWA's existing 
discretionary programs?
    Answer. The Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement 
program would target only very large projects of national significance 
(costing at least $100 million or 50 percent of a state's most recent 
annual federal-aid apportionments) that otherwise might be delayed or 
not constructed because of cost or uncertainty over timing of revenues. 
Unlike other discretionary grants, grants made under this program 
(limited to 20 percent of project costs to fund debt service reserve 
accounts) would be used to secure external debt financing to support 
projects that have the potential to be self-supporting from user fees 
or other dedicated revenue streams and that involve public-private 
partnerships.
    Question. One of the criteria listed in the NEXTEA proposal talks 
about the credit-worthiness of the Project. Could you explain that 
criteria?
    Answer. Given the limited amount of grant money available, we want 
to try to ensure that the funding is leveraged to the greatest degree 
possible. This would tend to encourage projects that, based on their 
underlying credit-worthiness or ability to repay debt and generate 
returns, can arrange external financing with the minimum Revenue 
Stabilization Fund.
    Question. This program had been explained as an innovative 
financing mechanism. Is this still an accurate characterization of the 
program now that its funding structure has changed to a grant program? 
If so, why?
    Answer. DOT's innovative finance initiative was begun to respond to 
the shortfall in conventional public funding sources for transportation 
infrastructure by expanding the resource base and leveraging new 
sources of capital, thereby increasing strategic investment in the 
nation's transportation systems. The proposed Transportation 
Infrastructure Credit Enhancement program, like DOT's other grant-based 
initiatives, complements traditional financing techniques by continuing 
the effort to streamline administrative procedures and allow federal 
grant funding to participate in project financing in new, more 
flexible, and more cost-effective ways. The program would encourage 
more private sector and non-federal participation, address important 
public needs in a more budget-effective way, and take advantage of the 
public's willingness to pay user fees to receive the benefits and 
services of transportation infrastructure sooner than would be possible 
under traditional, pay-as-you-go grant reimbursements.
                     central artery/tunnel project
    Question. Since what you predicted in 1995 regarding an overly 
optimistic cost estimate has come to pass, why do you oppose revising 
the cost goals now?
    Answer. During the end of 1995 and the beginning of 1996, the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State of Massachusetts 
(State) agreed to appropriate cost indicators/goals to be used in the 
Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Finance Plan. FHWA has been committed to 
work with the State to do everything in our power to achieve these 
aggressive cost containment goals. FHWA and the State have gone on 
record stressing the importance of maintaining these aggressive cost-
containment goals as continuing motivation to work hard in controlling 
costs. Part of the significant savings that have been realized to date 
can be attributed to the setting of these goals. In addition, certain 
trends such as that for cost growth during construction continue to 
show a downward slope. To relax or modify these goals, which have been 
and are continuing to prove effective in controlling costs, could 
result in a self-fulfilling situation where additional savings are not 
realized. Obviously if these goals are not reached, then costs will 
rise. However, FHWA is confident that, if there are increases in cost, 
these will not be large since the project design phase is virtually 
complete, tending to preclude changes in scope and scale. Since much of 
the work is already under contract, the potential for increases due to 
items such as inflation is further minimized.
    Since the setting of these goals, the maintenance of budget has 
been generally successful. Given a number of external circumstances, 
there has been some increase in project cost, about 4 percent over the 
last two years, raising the total cost from $10.4 billion to $10.8 
billion.
    FHWA and the State over the last several years have identified over 
$0.5 billion of savings due to cost containment/value engineering 
programs. In addition, the State and FHWA are actively exploring other 
strategies for additional savings. Examples include: (1) alternative 
and less expensive traffic management plans, (2) additional savings 
achieved through investment strategies and safety programs in the Owner 
Controlled Insurance Program, (3) continued evaluation of scope and 
organizational staffing cuts, (4) alternative approaches for cost 
sharing in utility force accounts, and (5) maximization of savings due 
to a ``zero-based'' approach toward fulfilling regulatory requirements.
    Question. Is the level of spending for Interstate Maintenance in 
the 6-year STIP adequate? If no, why did you approve the STIP?
    Answer. For the Statewide program, FHWA's initial concern is that 
the State maintains its commitment to a $400 million (Federal + State 
funds) program; and that the projects selected by the State and locals 
are consistent with the processes required by ISTEA. These commitments 
are presently being met.
    Regarding the amount of Federal funds programmed for the 
Interstate, FHWA's responsibility is to assure it is adequately 
maintained. However, this is done primarily on a ``results basis'', as 
opposed to a ``level of effort'' basis. That is, we look at the State's 
Interstate maintenance certification and condition data. The overall 
condition of Interstate pavements in Massachusetts has not deteriorated 
in the past years, and there was actually a slight improvement in 
recent years. The overall condition of Interstate bridges in 
Massachusetts has improved slightly over the past several years. 
Nevertheless, last year, FHWA did tell the State that we thought they 
may need to allocate more funds to the Interstate in the future, and 
they should reassess what is needed to maintain the condition of the 
Interstate. We do have to recognize that State funds, including those 
for basic maintenance, do not have to be in the STIP, and some are 
allocated on a more short term needs basis. Again the indicator is the 
actual condition achieved.
    Question. What effect will the need to repay GAN's over an extended 
period of time do to other transportation needs in Massachusetts? Can 
Massachusetts maintain a balanced statewide transportation program in 
the face of this commitment?
    Answer. Massachusetts' highway transportation program, Central 
Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) plus the ``Statewide Program'', for each Federal 
fiscal year (FFY) is represented in the State's current Statewide 
Improvement Program (STIP), which covers fiscal year 1998 through 2003. 
For Federal-aid funds through fiscal year 2002, the split is 71/29 
percent between the CA/T and the Statewide Program respectively. After 
fiscal year 2002, the split is 50/50 percent between the CA/T and the 
Statewide Program respectively. The State's CA/T Finance Plan, October 
1997 (as amended January 1998) and accepted by FHWA on February 5, 
1998, indicates this 50/50 percent split is expected to be continued 
until the GAN's are paid off, which is estimated as 2009. While a STIP 
has not been formulated for the years after fiscal year 2003, FHWA has 
made it very clear, including making it a condition of all CA/T Finance 
Plan acceptances, that the State must maintain a balanced Statewide 
program. Annual GAN's repayment is expected to be dependent upon the 
level of Federal-aid highway funds available to Massachusetts. Also, 
please see the answer provided for the next question on the Central 
Artery/Tunnel Project on options for additional funding.
    Question. If Massachusetts needs more money for the project, where 
will it come from?
    Answer. FHWA supports appropriate contingency planning, which is 
one of the reasons FHWA requested the State to prepare a Finance Plan 
for the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project, the first finance plan 
ever for a Federal-aid highway project.
    To date, the State has satisfactorily addressed all changes in 
costs and funding. The State's passage of the Metropolitan Highway 
System (MHS) legislation set up a structure for funding the State's 
share of the project. This includes a cost center for constructing the 
CA/T Project and operating the major freeways, tunnels and bridges in 
the Boston area. This relies on contributions from several benefiting 
State agencies, backed by increased tolls, general revenues, and a 
portion of anticipated future Federal-aid highway funds.
    The State and FHWA do not believe it is necessary to identify how 
each and every possible contingency will be addressed. However, the 
recently accepted CA/T Updated Finance Plan states that as changes 
occur, the State is prepared to demonstrate the methods that they will 
use to adjust for such changes. Having too specific contingency plans 
for increases in cost and/or reductions in funding could become self 
fulfilling, and therefore counterproductive to aggressively containing 
costs. That is, if those who are working hard to contain costs think 
extra funds would be available, they may not have the same incentive to 
find ways to continue to contain costs.
          salt lake city interstate 15 reconstruction project
    Question. Has FHWA examined Utah's request for special funding for 
Olympics-related highway projects?
    Answer. Yes, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has 
provided FHWA a copy of its report, Utah Transportation Infrastructure 
Needs, 2002 Winter Olympics Volumes I and II, which identifies $5.7 
billion of Olympic related transportation projects and requests $4.3 
billion of Federal support, of which $2.1 billion is for highways, 
Intelligent Transportation Systems, intermodal centers and planning. 
The amounts requested are in addition to Utah's current Federal-aid 
apportionment levels. Utah officials expect to receive Federal support 
for highways in two ways: (1) higher apportioned funds for Utah under 
ISTEA reauthorization and (2) language in ISTEA reauthorization 
providing priority consideration for use of discretionary funds for 
sites hosting Olympic games. Utah's apportionment would increase under 
reauthorization proposals (compared to ISTEA); the House and Senate 
bills also include the provision emphasizing priority for use of 
discretionary funds for sites hosting Olympic games.
    Question. In FHWA's view, is the proposed level of funding 
justified?
    Answer. FHWA believes the UDOT's cost estimates are accurate and 
reliable based on what is known about the proposed projects, as several 
projects are in the planning phase. The estimates will become more 
refined as all of the projects are better defined and more is learned 
through project development, final design, and construction. UDOT views 
the funding requests for special funding as supporting the long term 
transportation needs for the State of Utah, in addition to the short 
term needs of the Olympic Games.
    Utah's average annual apportionment under ISTEA was $128.3 million, 
compared to $174.9 million under NEXTEA or over $200 million under 
BESTEA and ISTEA II. Utah should view apportioned Federal-aid highway 
funds as the primary source of Federal funding for any Olympic related 
highway improvements. In general, FHWA does not support special funding 
for any particular State including Utah, although all States will have 
opportunities to apply for any discretionary program funds authorized 
by Congress. As already noted, the House and Senate reauthorization 
proposals would provide Utah, as an Olympic site, priority 
consideration for discretionary program funds.
    On March 20, 1998, FHWA allocated Utah $1.77 million in 
discretionary bridge program (available from a fiscal year 1997 carry-
over balance) for the replacement of one of its discretionary 
candidates, the Riverdale Road Bridges. These funds should help povide 
relief from the cash flow problems UDOT is currently experiencing in 
advancing Olympic related projects.
    The Department is committed to working with the State and local 
officiasl to ensure they are ready for the Olympics.
    Question. Can Utah complete the I-15 project without federal funds? 
If so, what would the effect be on other transportation projects in 
Utah?
    Answer. Yes, UDOT can complete the I-15 project without Federal 
funds; UDOT has committed to completing it whether or not Federal funds 
materialize. A year ago, the Utah legislature formalized their 
commitment to fund a ten-year transportation program, including the I-
15 project, for a total amount of $2.6 billion. The UDOT has certified 
that sufficient funds will be available to construct the I-15 project 
without any Federal funding. However, if no (or insufficient) 
additional Federal funds are made available, other projects planned for 
funding may have to be postponed or canceled, or additional revenue 
generated by the State.
                     large-dollar highway projects
    Question. If enacted, how will FHWA implement the proposed 
requirement that states submit finance plans for projects over $1 
billion? (a) What information would states be required to provide? 
Would FHWA approve these plans? (b) What would such an approval convey?
    Answer. The FHWA would require a State to provide information on 
project activity planned each year and the estimated amount of funds 
(and sources) needed for the project, highlighting those years with 
significant funding needs through the completion of construction or the 
finance period. Depending on the certainty of funding or the complexity 
of the finance mechanisms, FHWA would require a funding or financing 
schedule with detailed information on funding sources, cash flow 
projections, and repayment of debt.
    FHWA would review and accept finance plans. Acceptance of a finance 
plan by FHWA would convey only that there is confidence in the 
investment of Federal-aid, given that adequate financial resources are 
committed to the project within a reasonable time period.
    Question. If we're going to have finance plans, and if the federal 
government is to invest billions of dollars in large-dollar projects, 
does FHWA favor requiring states to prepare initial total project cost 
estimates to fully understand the extent of the proposed federal 
investment and the related financing requirements?
    Answer. State and local officials develop cost estimates 
(regardless of a dollar threshold) at various points in the 
environmental, planning and project development process. For example, 
ISTEA requires that the Transportation Improvement Plan be financially 
constrained as a means of assuring that no project will begin without 
adequate funding to complete that project. State and local officials 
estimate the cost of project construction before advertising for bids.
    Each estimate is reliable and accurate based on what is known about 
the proposed alternatives or project at the time. Estimates become more 
refined as the project is better defined and more is learned through 
project development, final design, and construction. Costs typically 
increase as project planners and engineers encounter and resolve the 
unknowns--mitigation of adverse impacts, hazardous wastes or 
archeological artifacts below the surface, or unstable soil conditions.
    In this context, finance plans for projects estimated to cost 
$1,000,000,000 or more are based on the best information on the total 
project cost available at the time. The commitment of the project 
sponsors and acceptance of the financing plan by FHWA should help avoid 
finance-related surprises once construction is underway. With respect 
to the Federal interest, it clarifies to all from the outset that there 
is no implied burden on the Federal government to fund any shortfalls.
    Question. Should FHWA require states to track cost growth on large-
dollar federal-aid projects similar to what OMB requires federal 
agencies to do for its own large-dollar acquisitions?
    Answer. For projects estimated to cost $1 billion or more, we 
believe it is important to establish (1) aggressive cost containment 
goals, (2) a schedule of project milestones, and (3) a systematic 
approach for tracking and monitoring the budget, costs, and cash flow 
in relation to achieving the cost containment goals and project 
milestone. With these basic precepts in mind, FHWA does not want to 
develop a one-size-fits-all approach. There needs to be latitude for 
FHWA and a State to agree how best to manage and monitor each 
particular large-dollar project including, establishing goals and 
milestones, developing appropriate cost containment strategies and 
tracking techniques, and deciding the frequency of reporting and 
progress meetings.
    Question. Does it make sense to have DOT approve a large-dollar 
highway project in its totality at the outset of that project?
    Answer. Review and acceptance of the finance plan probably is more 
critical than approval of the project in its totality. Through the 
finance plan, the project sponsors convey their commitment of current 
and future funding for the project. The commitment of the project 
sponsors and acceptance of the financing plan by FHWA should help avoid 
finance-related surprises once construction is underway. With respect 
to the Federal interest, it will clarify to all from the outset that 
there is no implied burden on the Federal government to fund any 
shortfalls. Depending on the scale of the project and the certainty of 
funding, the project sponsors may decide to stage construct the project 
in useable segments. High cost segments or elements primarily needed to 
serve future traffic could be constructed in later stage; such planning 
may be prudent particularly if there is less certainty about available 
funding in the out years.
               national technology deployment initiative
    Question. How will this program differ from FHWA's other technical 
assistance and deployment programs, such as the Local Technical 
Assistance Program and the ITS Deployment Incentives Program?
    Answer. We believe the NTDI program will be in a unique position to 
directly support expanded implementation so that users will see the 
benefits of new technology ``on the road.'' There is a strong, 
continuing need to support effective technology transfer programs such 
as the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), direct technical 
assistance/demonstration, and training. At the same time, we are 
looking to grasp the opportunity to greatly extend the benefits of 
innovation through greater deployment, and we view the NTDI as very 
complementary to these programs. In this respect, the NTDI program can 
be viewed as falling between research and development and the proposed 
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) deployment incentives program. 
The NTDI will address specific goals through expanded implementation of 
advanced technology, such as accelerating construction and maintenance 
operations, using advanced materials to improve the life cycle cost and 
extend the service life of the Nation's roadways and bridges, and 
improving the safety of driving during periods of inclement weather 
and/or reduced visibility. Conceptually, the NTDI is not a ``research 
program'' but a varied, technology-based ``infrastructure program'' 
geared toward ``putting projects on the ground.'' We also see NTDI as a 
vehicle to accelerate the advancement of innovative technologies to 
practice. The proposed ITS deployment incentives program is aimed 
purely at integrating ITS infrastructure components already on the 
ground.
    Question. Will ITS projects be eligible for funding under this 
program?
    Answer. The focus of NTDI is not ITS technologies. However, to the 
extent that ITS technologies would be utilized to meet the defined goal 
areas of the NTDI, we believe that this would be appropriate. For 
instance, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) furthered the 
development of roadway-weather information systems (RWIS), which use 
sensors to detect icing and snow conditions on bridges and roadways to 
aid winter maintenance operations. These systems are described by many 
as ``ITS projects'' because of the use of sensors and communications; 
but they also would be expected to directly support NTDI goals areas 
such as, improving driving safety during inclement weather. While 
funding criteria for NTDI-supported projects has not yet been developed 
(and, is expected to vary depending upon the relative maturity of the 
technology in question); we do not expect to support full construction 
costs of projects with NTDI funds. We believe that NTDI funds directed 
toward a comprehensive set of implementation-support areas such as 
extensive technical assistance, costs of testing and evaluation, 
potential risk sharing, and targeted, fast-track development efforts 
will produce the most cost-effective program design. We believe NTDI is 
different from, and complementary to, the proposed ITS deployment 
incentives program in that the proposed ITS deployment incentives 
program is geared purely to integration, not implementation.
    Question. Since the Initiative's goals are somewhat vague, please 
provide specific examples of the tangible benefits that would result 
from this Initiative.
    Answer. It is clear that Congressional action on this proposed 
program may significantly affect final characteristics of the Program, 
including number of goal areas and degree of impact which can be 
expected. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the extent of anticipated 
benefits at this time. We remain very optimistic about the potential of 
this Program, however, and the Administration's NEXTEA proposal 
included seven possible goal areas which the NTDI might address, if 
funding is sufficient. Following are examples of benefits which might 
be expected in each of these areas:
    Goal area 1: Reduced Delay and Improved Safety in Construction and 
Maintenance Work Areas.--New technologies, construction methods, and/or 
contracting practices can be applied to reduce the time required to 
complete construction and maintenance projects. Products such as model 
contract specifications to provide incentives for expedited delivery; 
improved safety hardware and practices to protect workers and prevent 
accidents; innovative detour systems; and enhanced communication with 
the traveling public to improve their driving and behavior through 
construction zones all can be deployed more aggressively to minimize 
the disruption of commercial and personal travel. In addition to 
improving work zone management, the use of new pavement materials with 
long service life will decrease the needed frequency of the work, thus 
greatly reducing overall impact on travelers and adjacent businesses.
    Goal area 2: Extended Life of the Current Infrastructure.--
Extending the life of pavements and structures has many benefits for 
taxpayers and travelers. More durable materials reduce the total life-
cycle cost of pavements and bridges, because there is a reduced need 
for repair and rehabilitation. The reduced need for maintenance and 
rehabilitation means fewer construction delays for travelers. Longer-
lasting pavements have fewer potholes, cracks, and ruts, which means a 
smoother ride for all road users and improved operating efficiency for 
shippers and haulers.
    Goal area 3: Increased System Durability and Life, Including 
Applications of High Performance Materials.--High performance materials 
can be deployed effectively for repair, rehabilitation, and 
strengthening of existing structures, as well as in the design and 
construction of new structures that are durable, capable of longer 
service, and has a lower life-cycle cost. The repair, rehabilitation, 
and strengthening applications will be immediately effective in 
extending the useful life of the existing infrastructure. The typical 
applications that are used include: Bridge deck replacement with 
composites or aluminum; steel/concrete beam strengthening with bonded 
fiber-reinforced polymer composite laminates; concrete deck 
strengthening with bonded fiber-reinforced polymer composite laminates; 
repair of deteriorated concrete elements with fiber-reinforced polymer 
composite wrapping; seismic retrofit and column wrapping (a few States 
are using this already); and external pre-stressing tendons for bridge 
strengthening.
    Measurable benefits will result from: Extended service life before 
functional replacement because of load limits; lower initial 
construction cost, in many cases; more corrosion-resistant, durable 
structures; reduced future maintenance needs and less traffic 
disruption; ease of fabrication, construction, transportation, and 
handling reduced project delivery time; and lightweight materials to 
improve resistance to earthquake damages.
    Goal area 4: Improved Safety of Driving at Night and Other Periods 
of Reduced Visibility.--The key benefits of technological advances in 
this area include reduced night-and-weather-related accident rates, 
improved highway safety, reduced social costs (vehicle and property 
damage, injury and death, lost time, etc.), and more efficient use of 
tax dollars through improved management systems. For instance, 
significant technology advances have occurred relatively recently in 
areas related to traffic signs and pavement markings:
  --As a result of the interest of many of the States' in improved 
        traffic signs and pavement markings, industry and manufacturers 
        have developed better signing and marking materials and 
        products.
  --New technologies for measuring retroreflectivity have been 
        introduced and are ready for deployment.
  --Information processing technology has advanced to the point where 
        more efficient management systems and data collection systems 
        for traffic signs and pavement markings can be implemented. 
        Several such systems are currently in development and will 
        require technology transfer and deployment during the next 6 
        years.
  --New opportunities are occurring to develop reliable control systems 
        for detecting fog, smoke, and other adverse environmental 
        conditions; however, considerable research and development must 
        be completed before they can be implemented.
    Goal area 5: Support and Enhancement of the Environment with Use of 
Innovative Technologies.--The use of innovative construction and 
maintenance techniques and materials can result in reduced potential 
impacts on human health, on air and water quality, on wildlife species 
and their habitats, and on wetlands and other elements of the natural 
and cultural environment. Certain advances also may produce appreciable 
cost savings through increased efficiency. Reductions in the amount of 
raw materials required for construction and maintenance activities will 
conserve natural resources and result in fewer materials entering the 
waste stream. Building upon current successes and developing further 
improvements in construction, operational, and maintenance techniques 
will produce immediate environmental benefits.
    Goal area 6: Support of Community-Oriented Transportation and 
Sustainable Development.--This area is quite diverse and difficult to 
capture in a few topical areas. Some examples of technology 
applications and associated benefits include:
  --Innovative bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as paths built 
        with recycled tires; and low-cost, high-security, easy-to-use 
        bicycle racks. These would remove impediments to non-motorized 
        travel.
  --Real-time transit system information systems would allow transit 
        patrons to better plan transit trips and to minimize the amount 
        of wait time, especially during inclement weather. This 
        improvement would be closely tied to the ITS program.
  --Active speed management and traffic enforcement technology, such as 
        radar-equipped speed trailers and red-light-running detection 
        cameras would reinforce responsible driving behavior and 
        improve travel conditions and safety within communities.
  --High-technology, low-cost graffiti removal systems. Graffiti on 
        transportation facilities (noise walls, bridges, retaining 
        walls) could be quickly and economically removed, and 
        transportation agencies might be able to ``give back'' 
        something to the community by lending out such equipment.
  --Technology-enhanced public involvement. Improved communication and 
        information-dissemination technology (for example, video 
        conferencing, cable television, and the Internet) offers 
        effective alternatives to traditional public meetings and 
        hearings.
    Goal area 7: Minimized Transportation System Closures, Constraints 
and Delay Caused by Snow and Ice.--Anticipated benefits include 
reductions in highway closures due to winter storms, earlier re-
openings after extreme events, improved operation during storms, more 
effective use of resources (manpower, chemicals, equipment), and better 
communication with the public and highway users. Today more than ever, 
the continuous, effective operation of the Nation's highways is 
important to the productiveness of the American economy. By the year 
2000, it is estimated more than 60 percent of industrial productivity 
will depend on ``just-in-time delivery'' of parts and components. 
Without a continuously reliable highway system during winter storm 
conditions, plants, shops, offices, and schools will shut down and 
production will wait for the opening of the highways. During the 
``Blizzard of 1996,'' the Northeast learned first-hand how much the 
Nation depends on reliable, continuous access to the transportation 
system. Estimates place the loss of economic productivity at $3 to $5 
billion for each day major roadways were closed in the Northeast. This 
places the total loss at $15 to $25 billion for this single event. 
Keeping the transportation system open and operating efficiently are 
vitally important to personal and industrial life in this Nation.
                    automated highway system program
    Question. How much has the Department spent to date on the AHS 
program? (a) What tangible benefits has the Department gained from 
those investments?
    Answer. A total of $58.7 million was obligated through fiscal year 
1998.
    The primary goal of the AHS work plan was to develop the preferred 
AHS concept, prototyping that concept and development of the AHS system 
specification. Although this work plan was not completed, the 
department and the community made great improvements to our knowledge-
base in vehicle-highway automation. These lessons learned will be 
applied to the Intelligent Vehicle Program.
    The first stage of the AHS work plan was the concept identification 
phase. The system objectives and characteristics were defined. This 
allowed for the identification of the critical and enabling 
technologies. From this phase it was learned that AHS is feasible in 
the long term and with a high level of sustained investment. It was 
also learned that vehicle-highway automation could extend beyond full 
automated systems to a more evolutionary approach moving from 
autonomous systems in mixed traffic, to partial automation, to full 
control.
    The second stage was concept evaluation. The principal findings of 
this period were that vehicle-infrastructure technologies can provide 
an effective solution in a wide variety of environments and for light, 
heavy and transit vehicles; applications may be tailored to meet local 
needs and still maintain national compatibility; the costs for 
dedicated lanes are likely to be similar to the cost of present day 
high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV).
    A key aspect of the AHS concepts evaluation process, site-specific 
case studies, engaged state and local transportation agencies in joint 
efforts to examine the potential of AHS for their particular needs. 
These case studies addressed issues for specific regions, corridors, or 
users, including the long range planning processes to assess the 
viability of AHS (to include automated bus/van transit operations) 
relative to other transportation alternatives; applicability of 
intermediate system approaches; possible institutional arrangements; 
potential impact on land use and urban form for the area; safety; 
individual benefits; and overall benefits and costs in transportation 
productivity. Preliminary case studies of transit automation (for 
Houston) and for rural automation applications (for the Yellowstone 
Corridor) were completed and documented. The case study for Houston 
provided encouraging results in that the capacity in people and 
vehicles, could be significantly increased through automation.
    The third stage was Concept Refinement which focused on further 
defining the AHS and how it may evolve from today's vehicle-highway 
system and on resolving the major AHS issues. The concept work was 
restructured from parallel analysis of 3 concepts into the analysis of 
a single broad architecture. Five critical issues were identified 
obstacle management, mixed traffic performance, driver role and 
acceptance, vehicle separation policy, and dedicated lanes. During this 
stage the government withdrew from the consortium and work stopped.
    A workshop has been arranged to enable key AHS project staff to 
convey the final ``lessons learned'' to the government. This will 
include the NAHSC's research findings, perceptions of knowledge or 
technology gaps, and future research needs. The focus of the workshop 
will be a comparison of autonomous and cooperative (vehicle-vehicle and 
vehicle-infrastructure) automation concepts applicable to the IVI 
services.
    The IVI will take advantage of the lessons learned through the AHS 
effort by improving the safety and efficiency of motor vehicle 
operations through an evolutionary approach. The IVI will bring 
technologies (and their benefits) to market in much nearer term that 
was envisioned in the AHS program. The IVI will build upon the research 
results of the AHS Program, as well as the NHTSA crash avoidance 
program.
    Question. Given that JPO decided to refocus the AHS program long 
before the scheduled August 1997 demonstration in San Diego, why did 
the Department decide to continue with the demonstration? (a) How much 
had the JPO committed to the demonstration prior to its decision to 
refocus the program? (b) How much in total did the demonstration cost 
the federal government?
    Answer. The AHS Demonstration was Congressionally-required as part 
of the ISTEA legislation. During the late fall of 1997, the confluence 
of five factors influenced the Department to reevaluate the AHS 
program. Those factors were: (1) the demonstration provided a timely 
opportunity to evaluate the program direction; (2) the NHTSA crash 
avoidance program had reached a level of maturity where it was in 
transition from research to operational testing; (3) the findings of 
both programs indicated that there was an opportunity to deliver near 
term benefits through driver-assistance application over the more long 
term vehicle-highway automation applications; (4) the National AHS 
Consortium had shifted from a revolutionary to an evolutionary 
deployment strategy; and (5) funding provided under the ISTEA extension 
was insufficient to fund the AHS program at the planned levels. This 
revaluation of the AHS program was started in March 1997 and completed 
with the delivery of the final report from the TRB review panel in 
March 1998. The decision to refocus AHS on the Intelligent vehicle 
program did not occur until after the demonstration.
    The total Federal expenditures for the Demonstration was $18.4 
million. The Federal share of 1997 AHS Demonstration prior to the 
decision to refocus the program was also $18.4 million since USDOT did 
not decide to refocus the program until after the demonstration.
    Question. How does the Intelligent Vehicle Program differ from 
similar programs in NHTSA?
    Answer. The Intelligent Vehicle Program combines the NHTSA Crash 
Avoidance program with other ITS vehicle-based research that was 
underway in the FHWA and FTA. The NHTSA program is the primary 
foundation for the IVI. All projects, contracts and program areas that 
were in place before the IVI have continued, with constraints on 
funding availability, without interruption. Plans for continuation of 
these projects and initiation of new ones and new operational tests of 
systems to provide specific safety benefits are underway as part of the 
IVI. The expectation is that this work will help us gain a full 
understanding of how these systems need to perform to be able to 
effectively provide specific safety benefits. This work will be the 
backbone of IVI for the next 2-3 years.
    Question. What will be the roles of FHWA and NHTSA under this new 
Intelligent Vehicle Program?
    Answer. Within the U.S. DOT, the Intelligent Vehicle Program will 
be a joint program of the FHWA, FTA, and NHTSA. The program has joint 
program managers from FHWA and NHTSA. The co-program managers report to 
a steering committee of the Directors from FHWA Office of Safety and 
Traffic Operations Research and Development, FHWA Office of Motor 
Carrier Safety and Technology, NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance 
Research, and FTA Office of Mobility Innovation. The ITS Joint Program 
Office is responsible for coordination and budget oversight.
    Working jointly with industry and other stakeholders, the U.S. DOT 
will develop performance guidelines, specifications, architectures and 
standards, test, and evaluate the most promising configurations to 
facilitate their deployment. A major focus of the IVI is to research 
and evaluate the benefits resulting from these systems, including the 
integration of driver information systems. These activities will be 
accomplished through the combined efforts of the U.S. DOT's modal 
administrations, the motor vehicle, trucking, and bus industries, state 
and local governments, and other stakeholders, working together under 
cooperative programs and partnerships to plan for and facilitate the 
incremental deployment of both vehicle-based and cooperative vehicle-
infrastructure-based driver assistance systems.
    Question. Please prepare a side-by-side comparison that details all 
provisions in the House-passed and Senate-passed surface transportation 
reauthorization bills relating to flexible use of highway funds for 
passenger rail purposes. Please cite the bill language and prepare 
short section-by-section analyses for each of the relevant provisions. 
Make sure to include information regarding whether these funds can be 
used for capital and/or operating purposes.
    Answer. There are no provisions in the House bill (H. 2400) 
providing for the use of highway funds for passenger rail purposes. The 
Senate bill (S. 1173) makes no provision for passenger rail operating 
costs, but expands eligibilities for capital improvements as follows:
National Highway System (NHS)
    Capital improvements to publicly owned intercity passenger rail 
lines (including Amtrak) added as an eligible use for NHS funds. 
Projects must meet the same criteria that currently apply to transit 
and non-NHS highway projects (must be in an NHS corridor, improve level 
of service and traffic flow, and be more cost effective than an 
improvement to the highway). [Sec. 1234, proposed Sec. 103(b)(5)(C)]
    Also adds eligibility for publicly owned intercity or intracity 
passenger rail terminals (including those owned by Amtrak) located on 
or adjacent to the NHS. [Sec. 1234, proposed Sec. 103(b)(5)(N)]
    Adds eligibility for publicly owned components of MAGLEV 
transportation systems. [Sec. 1234, proposed Sec. 103(b)(5)(Q)]
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
    Amends eligibility for STP funds to include capital costs of public 
or private vehicles and facilities that are used to provide intercity 
rail passenger service (eligibility parallels the eligibility of such 
vehicles and facilities under chapter 53 of Title 49, as revised by S. 
1173). [Sec. 1235(1), proposed Sec. 133(b)(2)]
    Amends safety improvement eligibility to include publicly owned 
passenger rail safety infrastructure improvements. [Sec. 1235(3), 
proposed Sec. 133(b)(4)]
    Also adds publicly owned intercity passenger rail infrastructure 
and vehicles (including Amtrak) to STP eligibility. [Sec. 1235(6), 
proposed Sec. 133(b)(13&14)]
    Adds eligibility for publicly owned components of MAGLEV 
transportation systems. [Sec. 1235(6), proposed Sec. 133(b)(16)].
    Question. Please break out the amounts allocated to the following 
programs in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and requested for 1999; Truman 
Hobbs Bridge; National Scenic Byways; Recreational Trails; Highway Use 
Tax Evasion Projects; Value Pricing Pilot program; Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics; and Research and Special Program 
Administration's Strategic Planning and Intermodal Research Initiative.
    Answer. Based on 1997 actuals as included under ISTEA and the 
funding levels included in the Administration's reauthorization 
proposal for 1998 and 1999, the amounts allocated to the programs 
identified is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1997     1998     1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman Hobbs Bridge..........................  .......       16       17
National Scenic Byways.......................       14       15       15
Recreational Trails..........................       15        7        7
Highway Use Tax Evasion......................        5        5        5
Value Pricing Pilot Program..................  .......       14       14
Bureau of Transportation Statistics..........       25       31       31
RSPA's Strat. Plng. & Inter. Research........  .......       10       15
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................       59       98      104
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Does the takedown amount for these ``other programs'' 
remain constant regardless of the highway obligation ceiling level? Can 
obligation ceilings be set on these programs individually
    Answer. Yes. Under current law as well as under the 
Administration's proposal, these programs have obligation limitation 
``set-aside'' for them at an amount equal to the level authorized 
before any of the limitation is distributed to the States. Obligation 
ceilings could be set on these programs individually but there is not 
authority to do so under current law.

                    Federal Railroad Administration
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                            fra's gpra goals
    Question. How has GPRA encouraged greater efficiency, 
effectiveness, and accountability at FRA's Offices of Safety and 
Railroad Development? What are your specific performance goals and 
plans for each of these Offices?
    Answer.
Safety
    Under GPRA, FRA's Office of Safety has established specific goals 
through the year 2002. In doing so, FRA has focused more clearly on the 
trend lines that have shaped these goals, and has developed methods and 
programs that emphasize efficiency and effectiveness, among several 
characteristics. By clearly listing performance goals in both the FRA 
and DOT Strategic Plans, FRA has demonstrated their willingness to be 
held accountable. The specific performance goals of the Office of 
Safety are the following:
  --Reduce the rate of rail-related fatalities.
  --Reduce the rate of passenger fatalities and injuries.
  --Reduce the rate of employee fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.
  --Reduce the rate of grade crossing collisions.
  --Reduce the rate of trespasser fatalities.
  --Reduce the rate of train accidents.
  --Reduce the rate of hazardous materials released by rail mode.
    FRA will continue to promote the Safety Assurance and Compliance 
Program (SACP), which requires a balanced approach between site-
specific inspections and partnerships with rail labor and management to 
identify and correct safety concerns in the rail industry. Likewise, 
FRA will continue with the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), which 
provides FRA with a continuing forum for advice and recommendations on 
the development of the railroad safety regulatory program. This 
collaborative rulemaking approach fully involves FRA's customers, 
including representatives of railroad labor and management, and makes 
the best use of resources to accommodate the rapidly evolving changes 
in the rail transportation industry.
Railroad Development
    GPRA also has encouraged greater efficiency, effectiveness, and 
accountability by focusing the Amtrak's performance on those criteria 
that are broadly indicative of the relative success of Amtrak's efforts 
to improve the quality of its service.
    Four performance goals have been identified for Amtrak; two under 
the Enhance Mobility area of the Department's strategic plan, and two 
under the Economic Growth and Trade area. Within Enhance Mobility, one 
goal will track the findings of regularly scheduled Amtrak customer 
surveys, the findings of which are expressed as a ``Customer 
Satisfaction Index'' (CSI). From an index baseline of 84 in 1997 it is 
expected that the CSI will improve to 87 by 1999. A second performance 
goal will track the efforts to increase, by 10 percent (365 trains per 
day), the number of trains (intercity and commuter) through the most 
congested segments of the Northeast Corridor in northern New Jersey by 
2005. The cost to increase capacity will be shared by Amtrak and New 
Jersey Transit. Within Economic Growth and Trade, special attention 
will be focused on the system-wide on-time-performance of Amtrak 
trains. The goal for 1999 is 87 percent on-time from a baseline of 76 
percent in 1995. The second goal in this area will track perhaps the 
single most important goal for the Corporation, trip time improvements 
between Boston and New York City, to measure the relative operational 
success of Amtrak's high-speed rail efforts. The average trip-time 
along this route in 1997 was 4 hours and 45 minutes and the target for 
2000 is ``under three hours''.
    Under the NDGPS program, FRA expects to reduce the frequency of 
train collisions and overspeed accidents by a factor of 100 on lines 
where PTC is installed. Specific outputs and outcomes are under 
development in conjunction with FHWA and the US Coast Guard. The Coast 
Guard will serve as the lead agency for installing, operating, and 
maintaining the NDGPS network.
    The Next Generation High-Speed Rail program goals include 
developing, demonstrating, and validating cost-effective high-speed 
(125-150 mph) passenger rail technology to operate on existing 
infrastructure in the US; reducing upgrade costs for high-speed to $2-3 
million per mile; and making proven technology and methods available to 
States for HSR implementation. The program has been working towards 
these goals in three major areas. In the non-electric locomotive area, 
FRA will demonstrate a self-contained locomotive unit with acceleration 
capabilities comparable to electric locomotives and without 
substantially increasing track forces, noise or emissions levels over 
conventional fossil fuel units. In addressing grade crossing hazards, 
FRA will demonstrate high-speed passenger operations on existing 
corridors on which grade crossings remain in place, but at safety 
levels equal to or better than at present for conventional speeds. In 
Track and Structures, FRA will demonstrate construction at 75 percent 
or less of present construction costs and for the track structures to 
withstand both heavy freight and high-speed passenger usage with costs 
no higher than present conventional practice permits.
    The Office of Research & Development goals address railroad safety. 
They support the FRA's Office of Safety in its safety rulemaking and 
safety enforcement activities, and also support other customers, 
including the railroad industry, the railroad supply industry, railroad 
unions, and railroad passengers and shippers, through the development 
of new technologies to improve railroad safety. The Office has 
encouraged greater efficiency and accountability by undertaking both 
peer and customer reviews to insure that the program is addressing 
priority topics, tracking the degree to which research projects support 
scheduled rulemaking actions and assessing the timely dissemination of 
research results.
                             gpra outcomes
    Question. What are the outcomes or outputs that FRA is measuring 
and why were these selected?
    Answer. FRA's Office of Safety is measuring the following outcomes:
  --Rail-related fatalities.
  --Rail passenger fatalities and injuries.
  --Rail employee fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.
  --Grade-crossing collisions.
  --Trespasser fatalities.
  --Train accidents.
  --Hazardous materials released by rail mode.
    These safety outcomes were selected because they represent the 
broad spectrum of the rail environment. Two of the outcomes--namely 
grade-crossing collisions and trespassing on rail property--are the 
leading causes of rail-related fatalities (approximately 90 percent). 
Additionally, FRA has an accident/incident database that has been 
providing timely and reliable data on these outcomes.
    The Amtrak program is measuring customer satisfaction, on time 
performance, and capacity improvement on one of the most congested 
segments of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. These outcomes reflect 
Amtrak's progress towards improving service quality. Amtrak's long-term 
financial viability is tied to its ability to attract and retain 
customers and the outcomes being measured will help judge the success 
of Amtrak's efforts to make its service more attractive.
    Under the NDGPS program, specific outputs and outcomes have been 
developed in conjunction with FHWA and the US Coast Guard and directly 
support the goals of the program. While the long term outcome of the 
project is to reduce the frequency of train collisions and overspeed 
accidents by a factor of 100 on lines where PTC is installed, interim 
project output include the acquisition of DGPS receivers and the 
installation of PTC on 5,000 miles of track by 2003.
    The Research and Development program is tied directly to the safety 
outputs.
    The outcome of the Next Generation High-Speed Rail program will be 
to develop and demonstrate cost-effective high-speed (125-150 mph) 
passenger rail technology operating on existing infrastructure in the 
US. The objective is to provide service compatible to that which is 
currently only possible with electrification networks, without the very 
high infrastructure investment required to operate electrically.
                   gpra and collaborative management
    Question. How are you focusing on collaborative management with the 
staff under GPRA?
    Answer. At FRA, internal management accountability tools have been 
modified to include the performance goals and measures that were 
developed in order to comply with GPRA. For example, the Administrator 
meets regularly with the Deputy Secretary to review progress on a 
number of projects that are included in her Performance Agreement with 
the Secretary. Embedded in this agreement are the critical elements of 
what is being tracked by GPRA. Managers must update the entries in the 
Performance Agreement for which they have specific responsibility, 
giving the current status of all projects and discuss any issues that 
stand in the way of achieving goals. This collaborative approach to the 
management of the Performance Agreement ensures that no item covered by 
GPRA escapes the close scrutiny of Associate Administrators and the 
Administrator herself.
    In addition, FRA developed collaborative teams in updating its 
Strategic Plan (its first under GPRA requirements) over the past year. 
In doing so, a broad range of ideas and viewpoints were solicited from 
all segments of the agency--both headquarters and field offices, 
supervisory and non-supervisory. The teams were responsible for 
producing a plan that committed the agency to achieving specific 
performance goals in a variety of areas in the rail environment. This 
plan is the basis for FRA's input into the Department of 
Transportation's broader Strategic Plan. FRA will continue this 
collaborative team concept on an on-going basis.
                  timing of railroad safety user fees
    Question. Are the railroad safety user fees described in Sec. 331 
of the bill language in the fiscal year 1999 Budget Appendix to be 
imposed and collected beginning in fiscal year 1999? Why is this 
proposed in appropriations legislation, when the rail safety program is 
up for reauthorization in 1998?
    Answer. Yes, our railroad user fee proposal envisions collection of 
railroad user fees in fiscal year 1999. Congress originally established 
the railroad user fee program for a five-year term in the 1990 Budget 
Reconciliation Act. The Administration believes the Congress should 
reauthorize the program this year and could do so either through the 
rail safety program reauthorization or, due to its close relationship 
to the Department's overall funding, through the fiscal year 1999 DOT 
Appropriations Act. Accordingly, FRA has included enabling language for 
the program as part of the proposed 1999 DOT appropriations bill 
language.
                   base for railroad safety user fees
    Question. The budget justification states that the base upon which 
the proposed user fees are calculated is broadened to include all costs 
attributable to the Safety Office and to the safety-related functions 
of the Research and Development program (total estimated for fiscal 
year 1999 is $82.1 million). How has the base been broadened? Who will 
be assessed these fees, and for what purposes? Has FRA developed a fee 
schedule? If so, please provide it for the record.
    Answer. The railroad user fee program in effect from 1990-1995 
(established by the Congress in the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act) 
required the railroad industry to reimburse the Federal Government for 
costs incurred by the FRA in administering the Federal Railroad Safety 
Act of 1970 but did not cover FRA's costs incurred in administering the 
Hours of Service Act or the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, or 
safety-related functions of the Research and Development program. The 
fiscal year 1999 proposal provides for industry reimbursement for these 
costs. The proposed fees would be assessed upon the entire railroad 
industry. FRA has not developed a fee schedule for the proposed fees. 
The original fee schedule was established through the rulemaking 
process and any revisions to that schedule would also have to be 
adopted through agency rulemaking.
                               user fees
    Question. What are the responses from the railroad industry to the 
user fee proposal?
    Answer. The railroad industry has consistently opposed railroad 
safety user fees. The industry considers these fees to be an 
inequitable financial burden which affects the ability to compete with 
other transportation modes.
                           operation respond
    Question. FRA's fiscal year 1999 budget request has transferred 
$103,000 in costs associated with Operation Respond, formerly funded 
from the Office of the Administrator, to the Office of Railroad Safety. 
What are the costs, benefits, and current status of FRA's involvement 
in the Operation Respond project? Please specify fiscal year 1996, 
fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 funding, and the fiscal year 
1999 request. How much longer is it anticipated that FRA will help 
finance this project? What is the total amount of the fiscal year 1999 
Department of Transportation request for Operation Respond, including 
requests from other agencies?
    Answer. Saving lives in hazardous material or passenger rail 
accidents is the primary safety benefit of Operation Respond. Operation 
Respond assists states, local responders and railroads to respond to 
these accidents in a rapid and coordinated manner. Funding for 
Operation Respond is as follows:

                         [Dollars in thousands]

        Fiscal year
1996:
    FRA...........................................................   $53
    FHWA..........................................................   190
    RSPA..........................................................   120
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................   363
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
1997:
    FRA...........................................................    53
    FHWA.......................................................\1\ 1,000
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total....................................................... 1,053
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
1998:
    FRA...........................................................   103
    FHWA.......................................................\1\ 1,000
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total....................................................... 1,103
                        =================================================================
                        ________________________________________________
1999: FRA.........................................................   103

\1\ Earmarked by Congress.

    FRA plans to continue its funding of Operation Respond until fiscal 
year 2002, at which time the demonstration project will be a fully 
developed and self sufficient national system.
    The fiscal year 1999 funds will be used to enhance the Operation 
Respond Emergency Information System (OREIS) to include short line and 
regional railroads in the system. While many short line and regional 
carriers handle a wide variety of hazardous materials, they often do 
not possess the centralized computer capabilities or linkages to 
shipper car location message systems of those of larger railroads. 
Operation Respond and FRA will work with these carriers to introduce 
and install OREIS on their system.
                  safety fiscal year 1997-1999 funding
    Question. Please prepare a comparative funding table for the Office 
of Safety for fiscal years 1997-1999, broken out in the following 
manner:
        Federal Enforcement Program
                Program Costs
                PC&B
                Number of Staff (headquarters and regional/field 
                offices)
        Automated Track Inspection Program
                Program Costs
                PC&B
                Number of Staff (headquarters and regional/field 
                offices)
        Safety Regulation and Program Administration
                Program Costs
                PC&B
                Number of Staff (headquarters and regional/field 
                offices)
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                  --------------------------------------
                                                    1998         1999
                                   1997 actual    estimate     estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Enforcement Program:
    Program Costs................        8,798        8,476       10,738
    PC&B.........................       30,077       32,503       35,871
    Number of staff: (FTE's)               439          456          472
     (Field).....................
Automated Track Inspection
 Program:
    Program Costs................        1,196        4,220        2,500
    PC&B.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Number of staff..............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Safety Regulation and Program
 Administration:
    Program Costs................        4,269        4,434        4,893
    PC&B and Support Costs.......        6,983        7,417        7,957
    Number of staff: (FTE's)                81           90           90
     (Headquarters)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     status of ntsb recommendations
    Question. What are the remaining open NTSB recommendations, and 
what is FRA doing to respond to each one? Please list all NTSB 
recommendations for the last three years that have been addressed and 
closed, indicating whether or not NTSB was satisfied.
    Answer. As of April 9, 1998, there are 66 open NTSB Safety 
Recommendations that have been addressed to FRA. Of these, 61 have been 
classified by NTSB as being in ``Open-Acceptable Action'' status. The 
remaining 5 open recommendations have been classified by NTSB as being 
in ``Open-Unacceptable Action'' status. A brief summary of each of 
these open recommendations follows, with an explanation of FRA's action 
toward achieving acceptable action by the Board.
    During the past three years, twenty-two NTSB Safety Recommendations 
have been addressed and closed. Eighteen of these recommendations were 
closed with satisfactory action from NTSB's perspective. One 
recommendation was closed for reason be being reconsidered by the 
Board. The remaining 3 were found to be unacceptable by the Board. A 
listing of each of these recommendations also follows.
           open ntsb safety recommendations addressed to fra
    R-87-16. Train Control System--``Promulgate Federal standards to 
require the installation and operation of a train control system on 
mainline tracks which will provide for positive separation of all 
trains.''
    On August 24, 1994, FRA provided update to NTSB indicating the 
``Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act'' of 1992 required FRA to 
report to Congress on the prospects of installation of a positive train 
control (PTC) system to prevent train collisions. FRA forwarded copy to 
Congress on July 8, 1994, and also provided one to NTSB. FRA indicated 
in its update to NTSB that the report addresses all the NTSB 
recommendations on a train control system, and provides for a time line 
for deployment on the system on high priority locations. FRA requested 
this recommendation be closed.
    NTSB responded under date of September 18, 1995, in part 
reiterating the need for PCS following the June 8, 1994 collision at 
Thedford, NE., on BN, which claimed the lives of two crewmembers.
    On January 23, 1998, FRA Administrator Jolene Molitoris and DOT 
Secretary Rodney Slater met with the Board of Directors of the AAR. In 
that meeting, AAR agreed to join with FRA and the Illinois DOT in a 
partnership to develop and demonstrate positive train control (PTC) on 
a portion of the Chicago--St. Louis rail corridor. AAR voted to invest 
$20 million for the project which will be matched by $15 million from 
FRA and IDOT. PTC is a lifesaving train control system that can prevent 
collisions, overspeed derailments and casualties among roadway workers 
by linking new train control systems with computer aided dispatching 
systems, automatic equipment identification systems and other 
information technologies.
    Current Status.--The current project indicated above is ongoing. 
NTSB's present classification for this recommendation is ``Open--
Acceptable Response.''
    R-87-23. Locomotive Cabs--``Promptly require locomotive operating 
compartments to be designed to provide crash protection for occupants 
of locomotive cabs.''
    In September 1989, the AAR adopted Locomotive Crashworthiness 
Requirements, Standard S-580, for new road type locomotives built after 
August 1, 1990. The requirements include anti-climbers, collision posts 
and stronger hoods on short hood locomotives.
    NTSB responded by letter on January 4, 1995 noting this 
accomplishment, and that research is underway in response to the Rail 
Safety Enforcement and Review Act (Public Law 102-365), which requires 
full-scale locomotive crash testing that should yield significant data 
for analysis of current and proposed crashworthiness features. NTSB 
indicated they expect prompt regulatory action once this analysis is 
complete. NTSB also noted that another factor that needs resolution is 
the features that should be incorporated when locomotives are rebuilt. 
NTSB classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable 
Response.''
    RSAC accepted as TASK 97-1 on 6/24/97. Working Group met 9/8 and 9/
9, 1997.
    FRA provided response to NTSB' Chairman Hall in letter dated 
October 10, 1997. In essence, FRA indicated it had referred the 
important issue of locomotive crashworthiness to the Railroad Safety 
Advisory Committee (RSAC) for consideration. A Locomotive Crew Safety 
Planning Group has been established (with NTSB representation) to 
review the report to Congress--specifically, each of the individual 
issues noted above, and recommend to the full RSAC which tasks should 
be routed to rulemaking, which should be referred for further research 
and development, and which are more appropriately addressed through 
voluntary action (or no action). The first meeting of this planning 
group was held on January 23, 1997. FRA requested Safety Recommendation 
R-87-23 remain ``Open-Acceptable Response'' and that NTSB concurrently 
close Safety Recommendation R-92-10 regarding the improved design of 
locomotive fuel tanks, as this will be addressed in conjunction with 
the other crashworthiness features through the systems approach 
outlined above.
    Current Status.--This project continues to be progressed by the 
Locomotive Crashworthiness Working Group of RSAC, with last meeting 
conducted in February 1998. NTSB's current classification for this 
recommendation is ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-87-66. Train Dispatchers-Selection/Training--``Conduct a thorough 
study of the selection process, training, duties, and responsibilities 
of train dispatchers to determine if the workload is beyond the normal 
job stress level and determine what selection and training standards 
are used for train dispatchers. In addition, establish selection and 
training standards and workload limits for dispatchers.''
    Subsequent to the issuance of this recommendation, Congress passed 
in 1992, the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act. Section 17 of the 
Act required the Secretary of Transportation to review the train 
dispatcher work environment and report the results to Congress. FRA 
performed this review and rendered report to Congress in January 1995, 
providing a copy to NTSB with reply on December 15, 1995.
    NTSB advised December 20, 1995, of their disappointment that FRA 
had not specifically addressed several of NTSB's concerns in the 
recommendations. NTSB indicated they would be reassured if the FRA's 
recommendations dealt more precisely with the shortcomings and concerns 
cited in the study. NTSB further cautioned FRA against emphasizing the 
value of technological advances or increased training, and asked FRA to 
keep them informed of activities in response to this recommendation.
    Current Status.--FRA continues to work toward the implementation of 
the contents of the Board's recommendation. NTSB's current 
classification of this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable 
Response.''
    R-88-20. Locomotive Sill Heights--``Modify 49 CFR Part 229 to 
require compatible main frame sill height standards.''
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated March 10, 
1989, indicating essentially that FRA could not justify a uniform sill 
height regulation. Another update provided by FRA on May 21, 1990 
requested this recommendation be classified as ``Open--Acceptable 
Action.''
    NTSB advised in letter dated March 4, 1991 that their Safety 
Recommendation R-88-20 addresses Federal regulations to require 
compatible mainframe sill height standards. This safety recommendation, 
as well as related outstanding safety recommendations, will be 
discussed in a separate letter concerning locomotive crashworthiness.
    FRA provided response to NTSB' Chairman Hall in letter dated 
October 10, 1997. FRA indicated the issue of locomotive crashworthiness 
had been referred to the RSAC for consideration. A Locomotive Crew 
Safety Planning Group has been established (with NTSB representation), 
and met on January 23, 1997, to formulate recommendations to be 
forwarded to the full RSAC regarding appropriate future actions with 
respect to improvements in locomotive crashworthiness, to specifically 
include methods to eliminate override in the event of collision. Given 
that current research and relevant accident history clearly indicate 
that compatible sill heights alone have not demonstrated the ability to 
provide additional crashworthiness protection in the event of a 
collision, and acknowledging the proactive approach being pursued by 
FRA in conjunction with the railroad industry through the RSAC process, 
FRA requested that NTSB classify Safety Recommendation R-88-20 as 
``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's October 10, 
1997 reply. NTSB's current classification of this recommendation is 
``Open--Unacceptable Action.''
    R-89-48. Closure fittings on tank cars--``Amending Title 49 CFR 
Part 179 to require that closure fittings on hazardous materials rail 
tanks be designed to maintain their integrity in accidents that are 
typically survivable by the rail tank.
    FRA advised NTSB on March 25, 1997, that the Agency is continuing 
to work with the AAR Tank Car Committee to incorporate new standards to 
improve the design and integrity of hinged manways and other fittings 
and closures on tank cars. AAR adopted new standards in January 1996 to 
enhance the design and integrity of manway covers on nonpressure tank 
cars.
    Current Status.--FRA provided written update in letter dated March 
25, 1997. NTSB advised on August 15, 1997, that standards that address 
the integrity and design of safety relief valves and all other closure 
fittings on the tank car are also needed. While recognizing FRA is 
continuing to work with AAR's Tank Car Committee, NTSB is concerned 
that nearly 8 years after issuing the recommendation, only standards 
for manways have been adopted. NTSB encourages FRA to work 
expeditiously with AAR to complete and implement similar standards for 
safety relief valves and other fittings. Pending FRA's response, NTSB 
has classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable 
Response.''
    R-89-51. Shelf Couplers on Locomotives--``Promulgate regulations 
requiring that locomotives be equipped with shelf couplers compatible 
in strength with the main frame sill of the locomotive.''
    FRA responded March 30, 1990, indicating FRA does not contemplate 
promulgating regulations requiring that locomotives be equipped with 
shelf couplers. Supporting data is not available to justify a 
rulemaking. In addition, all locomotives built after August 1, 1990, 
must be equipped with anticlimb devices, on short hood ends, which 
eliminates the need for shelf couplers. FRA requested NTSB consider 
this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Alternative Action.''
    FRA provided response to NTSB' Chairman Hall in letter dated 
October 10, 1997. In essence, indicated FRA has referred the issue of 
locomotive crashworthiness to the RSAC for consideration. A Locomotive 
Crew Safety Planning Group has been established (with NTSB 
representation), and met on January 23, 1997, to formulate 
recommendations to be forwarded to the full RSAC regarding appropriate 
future actions with respect to improvements in locomotive 
crashworthiness, to specifically include methods to eliminate override 
in the event of collision. FRA requested that Safety Recommendation R-
89-51 be classified as ``Open--Acceptable Response'' as the specific 
issue of shelf couplers on locomotives will be addressed in this 
working group.
    Current Status.--This project is continuing to be progressed by the 
Locomotive Crashworthiness Working Group of RSAC, with the last meeting 
conducted in February 1998. NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's 
October 10, 1997 reply. NTSB's current classification of this 
recommendation is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-89-81. Brake Tests (Cold Weather)--``Amend the Road Train and 
Intermediate Terminal Train Air Brake Tests, 49 CFR 232.13, to require 
additional testing of a train airbrake system when operating in extreme 
cold weather, especially when the feed valve setting is changed and the 
train will be operated in mountain grade territory.''
    FRA responded to NTSB May 10, 1991, indicating that during the 
current calendar year, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 
would be issued for general revision of the Power Brake regulations. 
NTSB responded under date of June 24, 1991, indicating the Board was 
pleased with FRA's intention to issue an ANPRM for the general revision 
of the Power Brake Regulation. NTSB then classified this Safety 
Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    Because of considerable opposition from rail management and rail 
labor to provisions within the ANPRM, this issue of revision of the 
Power Brake regulations was tasked to the Railway Safety Advisory 
Committee. After much discussion, consensus could not be reached in 
that forum. FRA has withdrawn this task from the RSAC, and will 
formulate a Notice of Proposed Rules on Power Brake regulation 
revision.
    Current Status.--NTSB currently has this recommendation classified 
as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-90-23. Dynamic Brakes--Indicator--``Study, in conjunction with 
the AAR, the feasibility of developing a positive method to indicate to 
the operating engineer in the cab of the controlling locomotive unit 
the condition of the dynamic brakes on all units in the train.''
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated November 30, 
1990, indicating FRA has not formulated a plan to study the feasibility 
of developing a positive method to indicate to the operating engineer 
the condition of the dynamic brake on all locomotives in a consist of 
locomotives hauling a train. The reason is that such a study will be 
contingent upon FRA's decision related to Safety Recommendation R-90-
24. NTSB replied under date of February 21, 1991, that it views its 
Safety Recommendations as separate issues and FRA should not tie them 
together. NTSB classified as ``Open--Unacceptable Response.''
    FRA responded to NTSB in letter dated May 10, 1991, indicating the 
ANPRM on the Power Brake Regulation would also address Safety 
Recommendations R-90-23 and R-90-24.
    Later, because of considerable opposition from rail management and 
rail labor to provisions within the ANPRM, this issue of revision of 
the Power Brake regulations was tasked to the Railway Safety Advisory 
Committee. After much discussion, consensus could not be reached in 
that forum. FRA has withdrawn this task from the RSAC, and will 
formulate a Notice of Proposed Rules on Power Brake regulation 
revision.
    Current Status.--NTSB currently has this recommendation classified 
as ``Open--Unacceptable Response.''
    R-90-24. Dynamic Brakes--Functional--``Revise regulations to 
require that if a locomotive unit is equipped with dynamic brakes that 
the dynamic brakes function.''
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated November 30, 
1990, indicating FRA is reviewing the issue of regulations pertaining 
to dynamic brakes on locomotives. Upon completion of our action, we 
will provide a definitive response to their recommendation. NTSB 
replied under date of February 21, 1991, indicating essentially that 
FRA did not provide any indication of what action, if any, is 
contemplated. NTSB classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--
Await Response.''
    FRA responded to NTSB in letter dated May 10, 1991, indicating the 
ANPRM on the Power Brake Regulation would also address Safety 
Recommendations R-90-23 and R-90-24.
    Later, because of considerable opposition from rail management and 
rail labor to provisions within the ANPRM, this issue of revision of 
the Power Brake regulations was tasked to the Railway Safety Advisory 
Committee. After much discussion, consensus could not be reached in 
that forum. FRA has withdrawn this task from the RSAC, and will 
formulate a Notice of Proposed Rules on Power Brake regulation 
revision.
    Current Status.--NTSB currently has this recommendation classified 
as ``Open-Await Response.''
    R-91-51. Special Use Equipment-Inspection--``Require that carriers 
inspect special-use rail equipment, such as heavy-capacity flatcars, 
before those cars are offered for service and thereafter at a frequency 
to be determined by FRA.''
    FRA provided initial response in letter dated June 22, 1993. FRA 
indicated that thorough inspection requirements for all freight cars 
are contained in 49 CFR Part 215. This regulation requires that at each 
location where a freight car is placed in a train, the freight car 
shall be inspected before the train departs. However, a full inspection 
is not required under circumstances where only train crews are on duty 
for this purpose. We agree that there is merit to the proposal that 
qualified mechanical personnel inspect special-use cars, particularly 
when they are offered under load. We will include this concept in our 
next review of the Freight Car Safety Standards. However, given our 
extremely heavy regulatory workload, we are not able to project when 
that review can commence.
    NTSB provided response in letter dated August 23, 1993. NTSB 
indicated that the Board notes that FRA agrees that the recommendation 
has merit and plans to include the issue in its next review of the 
Freight Car Safety Standards.
    Current Status.--Pending the results of this review, NTSB 
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-91-52. Special Use Equipment-Derailment Notice--``Require that 
carriers immediately notify the shipper and car owner about a 
derailment involving a special-use, heavy-capacity flatcar.''
    FRA provided initial response in letter dated June 22, 1993. FRA 
indicated we agree that car owners should have a good record of 
derailments, damage and repairs to these cars. This is an operating 
procedures matter that can best be addressed by the AAR which received 
a similar recommendation. We anticipate the AAR's response will resolve 
this recommendation. Should that not be the case, we will include this 
issue in the regulatory review referred to above.
    NTSB provided response in letter dated August 23, 1993. NTSB 
indicated they were pleased that FRA agrees that owners of special-use, 
heavy-capacity flatcars should be informed of derailments and that the 
AAR may be able to address the intent of this recommendation.
    Current Status.--NTSB has classified this recommendation as 
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-91-53. Special Use Equipment--Reporting--``Require that carriers 
report derailments involving special-use, heavy-capacity flatcars to 
the AAR, which will maintain a record of the derailment history of all 
such cars.''
    FRA provided initial response in letter dated June 22, 1993. FRA 
indicated this recommendation is similar to the previous one, in that 
it deals with AAR reporting procedures. FRA indicated it agrees with 
the recommendation and looks to the AAR for resolution and the 
provision of appropriate information to the Board. Again, should the 
AAR fail to act, we would include this issue in the regulatory review 
process.
    NTSB provided response in letter dated August 23, 1993. NTSB 
indicated the Board understands that FRA agrees with the intent of this 
recommendation and expects the AAR to act on this matter.
    Current Status.--Pending further action by the AAR or FRA, the 
Board has classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable 
Response.''
    R-91-54. Special Use Equipment--Hazardous Materials--``Determine, 
using owner' records of derailments for special-use, heavy-capacity 
flatcars under load, whether handling of such equipment should be 
restricted in trains that include tank cars or hopper cars transporting 
hazardous materials and cars carrying shipments of Class A and B 
explosives.''
    FRA provided initial response in letter dated June 22, 1993. FRA 
indicated that the issue of placement of hazardous materials cars is 
being addressed in an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to be 
issued under Docket HM-201A by the Research and Special Programs 
Administration. The special-use, heavy-capacity flatcar issue will be 
considered in this proceeding.
    NTSB provided a response in letter dated August 23, 1993. NTSB 
indicated the Board notes this issue will be considered in proposed 
rulemaking by RSPA. NTSB asked that FRA keep them informed of actions 
in determining whether these cars should be restricted.
    Current Status.--NTSB classified this Safety Recommendation as 
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-91-65. Review Track Standards--``Conduct a review of track safety 
standards to include as a minimum an evaluation of procedures 
associated with maintaining and installing continuous welded rail and 
its attendant structure.''
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated May 18, 1992. 
FRA advised it plans to initiate a regulatory proceeding that will 
specifically address the problem of track stability when continuous 
welded rail is incorporated as part of the track structure.
    NTSB provided response in letter dated July 8, 1992, indicating 
that pending satisfactory completion of the evaluation, NTSB has 
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response,'' 
and asked to be kept informed of FRA's progress.
    NPRM on revised 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards, published 
in Federal Register July 3, 1997. The comment period is closed on 
revisions to Track
    Safety Standards, and FRA is preparing the final rule. Likely 
issuance expected in mid-1998. Section 213.343 addresses ``Continuous 
welded rail (CWR)'', essentially that each track owner with track 
constructed of CWR shall have in effect written procedures which 
address the installation, adjustment, maintenance and inspection of 
CWR, and a training program for the application of those procedures, 
which shall be submitted to FRA within six months following the 
effective date of the final rule.''
    Current Status.--NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as 
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-91-66. CWR Standards--``Continue funding for on-going research 
development and prototype testing for a reliable device that can be 
used to determine actual longitudinal rail stress and predict when 
excessive longitudinal rail stress will occur, and upon adoption and 
implementation of such a device, assist railroads to implement and/or 
modify continuous welded rail standards to more effectively prevent 
track buckling.''
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated May 18, 1992. 
FRA advise we would continue to provide funding for on-going research 
development and prototype testing for a reliable device that can be 
used to determine actual longitudinal rail stress and predict when it 
will occur, and upon adoption and implementation of such a device, 
assist railroads to implement and/or modify continuous welded rail 
standards to more effectively prevent track buckling.
    NTSB provided response in letter dated July 8, 1992, indicating the 
Board was pleased at FRA's action to pledge funds to continued research 
as recommended, and asked to be kept informed of FRA's progress and 
resulting developments.
    FRA's Research & Development received an unsolicited proposal from 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, concerning Electro-
Magnetic Acoustic Testing (EMAT), and is presently evaluating this 
proposal.
    Current Status.--Based on FRA's response, NTSB has classified this 
Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-92-10. Research Locomotive Fuel Tanks--``Conduct, in conjunction 
with the AAR, General Electric, and the Electro-Motive Division of 
General Motors, research to determine if the locomotive fuel tank car 
be improved to withstand forces encountered in the more severe 
locomotive derailment accidents or if fuel containment can be improved 
to reduce the rate of fuel leakage and fuel ignition. Consideration 
should be given to crash or simulated testing and evaluation of recent 
and proposed design modifications to the locomotive fuel tank, 
including increasing the structural strength of end and side wall 
plates, raising the tank higher above the rail, and using internal tank 
bladders and foam inserts.''
    FRA provided its initial response in letter dated February 10, 
1993. FRA indicated its concurrence with NTSB's observation that the 
proximity of locomotive fuel tank's position to the rail places them in 
a vulnerable position during an accident. FRA indicated further it had 
scheduled a meeting for February 2, 1993, with the AAR, GE and GM to 
discuss their willingness to co-operate in a joint locomotive fuel tank 
research program. Due to funding constraints within these 
organizations, co-operative research or analysis may be limited in 
scope.
    NTSB responded in letter dated March 23, 1993. NTSB requested more 
details concerning the meeting held on February 2, 1993. NTSB again 
wrote to FRA in letter dated October 17, 1995, indicating the Board is 
aware that AAR recently adopted a recommended practice to provide basic 
performance requirements for locomotive fuel tanks on four- and six-
axle diesel electric locomotives, built after July 1, 1995. The Board 
has concerns about locomotives built before that date that will remain 
in service for several years. The Board concluded this was a positive 
step. NTSB requested FRA provide an update on its efforts in this area. 
Although FRA's report on locomotive crashworthiness released in June 
1995 addresses equipment to deter post collision entry of flammable 
liquids into the operation compartment, it does not address 
specifically fuel tank integrity. Pending a further response on this 
issue, NTSB classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable 
Response.''
    FRA provided update in letter dated December 18, 1995. FRA 
indicated it is continuing to collect and evaluate accident 
investigation data on fuel tank damage, fuel spills, etc., and will 
maintain close contact with railroads conducting tests of alternate 
fueled locomotives and fuel tenders. FRA indicated since we have 
completed our work, requested this item be closed.
    FRA provided response to NTSB' Chairman Hall in letter dated 
October 10, 1997. In essence, indicated FRA has referred the important 
issue to the RSAC for consideration. A Locomotive Crew Safety Planning 
Group has been established (with NTSB representation), and met on 
January 23, 1997 to formulate recommendations to be forwarded to the 
full RSAC regarding appropriate future actions with respect to 
improvement in fuel tank design. Given the proactive approach being 
pursued by FRA in conjunction with the railroad industry, along with 
the continuing efforts of the industry detailed earlier, FRA requested 
that NTSB classify Safety Recommendation R-92-10 as ``Closed--
Acceptable Action.''
    Current Status.--This project is continuing to be progressed by the 
Locomotive Crashworthiness Working Group of RSAC, with the last meeting 
conducted in February 1998. NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's 
October 10, 1997 letter. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--
Acceptable Action.''
    R-92-22. Develop Tank Car Testing Requirements--``Develop and 
promulgate, with the Research and Special Programs Administration, 
requirements for the periodic testing and inspection of rail tank cars 
that help to ensure the detection of cracks before they propagate to 
critical length by establishing inspection intervals that are based on 
the defect size detectable by the inspection method muse, the stress 
level, and the crack propagation characteristics of the structural 
component (requirements based on a damage-tolerance approach).''
    FRA provided NTSB written update of progress in letter dated March 
25, 1997. NTSB advised in letter dated August 13, 1997, that they 
recognize that regulations published under docket HM-201 on September 
21, 1995, permit as an option inspection intervals and procedures based 
on a damage-tolerance fatigue evaluation. However, NTSB indicated the 
required inspection intervals established under these regulations are 
based on average mileage rates, rather than on a damage-tolerance 
approach.
    Current Status.--The Board noted that since FRA is continuing to 
work with AAR, tank car manufacturers, and other industry groups to 
develop an inspection and testing program based on damage-tolerance 
principles, and because progress continues to be made, this Safety 
Recommendation remains classified as ``Open--Acceptable Action.''
    R-93-12. Dates for ATCS--``In conjunction with the AAR and the 
Railway Progress Institute, establish a firm timetable that includes, 
at a minimum, dates for final development of required Advanced Train 
Control System hardware, dates for implementation of a fully developed 
Advanced Train Control System, and a commitment to a date for having 
the Advanced Train Control System ready for installation on the general 
railroad system.''
    On August 24, 1994, FRA provided update to NTSB indicating the 
``Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act'' of 1992 required FRA to 
report to Congress on the prospects of installation of a positive train 
control (PTC) system to prevent train collisions. FRA forwarded copy to 
Congress on July 8, 1994, and also provided one to NTSB. FRA indicated 
in its update to NTSB that the report addresses all the NTSB 
recommendations on a train control system, and provides for a time line 
for deployment on the system on high priority locations. FRA requested 
this recommendation be closed.
    NTSB responded under date of September 18, 1995, in part 
reiterating the need for PCS following the August 30, 1991 collision at 
Ledger, MT., and the June 8, 1994 collision at Thedford, NE., both on 
BN.
    FRA has since advised that this recommendation is a part of the 
task that has been assigned to the Positive Train Control Working Group 
within the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC).
    Current Status.--NTSB's current classification of this Safety 
Recommendation is ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-93-16. Passenger Train Brake Inspections--``Amend the power brake 
regulations, 49 CFR 232.12, to provide appropriate guidelines for 
inspecting brake equipment on modern passenger cars.''
    FRA provided initial response in letter dated September 16, 1993. 
FRA indicated that in response to the ``Rail Safety Enforcement and 
Review Act,'', Public Law 102-365 (September 3, 1992) FRA is currently 
reviewing and rewriting the Power Brake regulations, and that Safety 
Recommendation R-93-16 will be considered during this procedure.
    NTSB responded in letter dated November 12, 1993, indicating the 
Board is pleased that FRA will consider the recommendation during the 
rewriting of the power brake regulation.
    Subsequently, the issue of passenger train brake inspections was 
considered in the rulemaking for Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. 
This recommendation was submitted to the Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee (RSAC), and was tasked to the Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards Working Group. As a result of these efforts, FRA published in 
the Federal Register on September 23, 1997, an NPRM for Passenger 
Equipment Safety Standards which addresses this recommendation.
    Current Status.--The comment period on the NPRM ended November 24, 
1997, and FRA intends to conduct hearings before issuing the final 
rule. Until the new regulations are published, NTSB classified this 
Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-93-24. Passenger Car Corner Posts--``In cooperation with the 
Federal Transit Administration and the American Public Transit 
Association, study the feasibility of providing car body corner post 
structures on all self-propelled passenger cars and control cab 
locomotives to afford occupant protection during corner collisions. If 
feasible, amend the locomotive safety standards accordingly.''
    FRA provided initial response in letter dated March 3, 1994. FRA 
indicated it shares NTSB's concern about the adequacy of the corner 
post structure on self-propelled passenger cars. FRA's concern extends 
beyond the corner post structure to the overall crashworthiness of this 
equipment. FRA indicated Section 10 of the Rail Safety Enforcement and 
Review Act of 1992 requires FRA to conduct extensive research and 
analysis on the crashworthiness of locomotive cabs. The approach FRA is 
taking is to consider self-propelled and control cab passenger 
equipment to be locomotives. FRA held a public meeting on June 21, 
1993, to solicit information and comments from the industry, to include 
FTA and APTA. Another meeting was held on February 3, 1994, and FRA 
will keep NTSB informed.
    NTSB provided written response on April 22, 1994. NTSB indicated it 
was pleased to learn that FRA shares the Board's concern about the 
adequacy of corner post structure, and notes FRA's willingness to 
cooperate with FTA and APTA.
    Subsequently, this recommendation was submitted to the Railroad 
Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), and was tasked to the Passenger 
Equipment Safety Standards Working Group. As a result of these efforts, 
FRA published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1997, an NPRM 
for Passenger Equipment Safety Standards which addresses this 
recommendation.
    Current Status.--The comment period on the NPRM ended November 24, 
1997, and FRA intends to conduct hearings before issuing the final 
rule. NTSB presently has this recommendation classified as ``Open--
Acceptable Response.''
    R-94-13. Train Control--Identify Benefits--``Identify and evaluate 
all potential safety and business benefits of the positive train 
control system currently proposed for the northwest region of the 
United States, and, consider the value of these benefits in your 
overall assessment of the system.''
    FRA's Press Release issued August 21, 1995, announced a grant of 
$750,000 to the Washington State Department of Transportation to help 
develop high-speed train control technology. As a part of this project, 
General Electric-Harris-Railway Electronics will develop a computer 
model to simulate the dense northwest U.S. rail corridor. The model 
will be used as an assessment tool to determine potential costs and 
benefits of using positive train separation and the effect of adding 
high-speed passenger traffic on existing corridor freight traffic flow.
    NTSB responded November 13, 1995, indicating it was pleased to 
learn of this computer model to be used as a tool to determine 
potential costs and benefits of using PTS. NTSB indicated the computer 
model satisfies the Board that their recommended action is underway, 
and asked FRA to keep the Board informed of the progress on the 
computer model.
    Current Status.--NTSB's current classification of this Safety 
Recommendation is ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-94-14. Train Control--Cost Benefit Analysis--``Identify and 
evaluate all of the potential benefits of positive train control 
separation and include them in any cost benefit analysis conducted on 
positive train separation control systems.''
    FRA advised NTSB on March 24, 1995, that it would be FRA's opinion 
that we should not become the arbiter of Positive Train Control 
business benefits across the national system. As was explained in the 
Report to Congress (pages 61-63) the business benefits may vary from 
railroad to railroad. The analysis of value of any investment must be 
undertaken within the context of the prevailing business strategy.
    NTSB responded November 13, 1995, that once the computer model 
referenced in 94-13 has been developed, the Board expects FRA and AAR 
to evaluate the potential benefits, and asked that NTSB be kept 
informed on development progress of the model.
    Current Status.--NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as 
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-95-01. Passenger Car Wheels--``Prohibit the replacement of any 
tread-braked passenger railroad car with rim-stamped, straight-plate 
wheels.''
    FRA provided its initial reply in letter dated June 1, 1995. FRA 
indicated its agreement with NTSB that rim-stamping of straight-plate 
wheels can lead to catastrophic failure of the wheel when subjected to 
head from tread braking. Rim-stamping was banned by AAR in 1978, and 
none are being used by Amtrak or commuter railroads. Those remaining 
are a limited number of tourist railroads. FRA indicated it did not 
view this as a national safety threat, and it will be completely 
eliminated in the years ahead. In addition, Public Law 103-440 directs 
the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe minimum standards for 
railroad passenger cars. FRA is preparing an ANPRM on Rail Passenger 
Equipment Regulations. This recommendation will be considered during 
these proceedings. FRA requested this Safety Recommendation be closed.
    NTSB provided response in letter dated August 10, 1995. NTSB 
indicated pending completion of rulemaking pertaining to the subject 
wheels, NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open-
Acceptable Response.''
    Current Status.--Provisions in NPRM, ``Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards'', Title 49 CFR Part 216, published in Federal Register, 
Tuesday, September 23, 1997, indicate: (a) On or after 1-1-98, no 
railroad shall place in service any vehicle equipped with a rim-stamped 
straight-plate wheel, except for a private car, and, (b) A rim-stamped 
straight-plate wheel shall not be used as a replacement wheel on a 
private car operated in a passenger train. Comment period ended 
November 24, 1997. FRA intends to hold public hearings prior to 
issuance of final rule. NTSB's current classification is ``Open 
Acceptable Response.''
    R-95-09. Tank Car Interiors--``Evaluate, with the assistance of the
    Railway Progress Institute and the AAR, the failure rate and the 
mode of failure of bowl-shaped sumps and education pipe bracing systems 
in tank cars transporting hazardous materials, and based on the results 
of this evaluation, require repairs or modifications to prevent 
mechanical damage to coatings or linings and subsequently to the tanks 
from misaligned components of the reduction pipe systems in tank 
cars.''
    Current Status.--Based upon FRA's March 25, 1997 written update to 
NTSB, the Board responded under date of August 13, 1997. NTSB indicated 
they note FRA is working with RPI and AAR and that a task group 
evaluating the performance of the bowl-shaped sumps is scheduled to 
present its formal proposal to the committee by July 1997. Because of 
this progress, Safety Recommendation R-95-9 remains classified as 
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-95-21. Trailer on Flat Car (TOFC)/Container on Flat Car (COFC)--
There were seven parts to this recommendations: ``(1) Establish a 
uniform minimum set of training requirements; (2) Establishment of 
written standard operating procedures; (3) Conduct of post-loading, 
pre-departure inspections of all loaded TOFC/COFC equipment; (4) 
Initiate effective TOFC/COFC securement system preventative maintenance 
intervals; (5) Discontinue the practice with flat cars with defective 
hitches of dropping the defective hitch and loading the car with 
container; (6) Review of design standards for trailers and containers 
to be loaded on TOFC/COFC equipment; and, (7) Determine and promote 
``Best Practices'' for TOFC/COFC loading safety.''
    FRA provided initial reply to NTSB in letter dated May 4, 1995, 
indicating its intention to assess voluntary actions taken by the 
railroad industry during the last quarter of 1995.
    NTSB provided response in letter dated August 1, 1995, indicating 
the Board is placed to note FRA intends to assess voluntary actions 
taken by the railroad industry during the last quarter of 1995.
    FRA has since advised the Board that this follow-up effort 
continues at various locations within the Nation.
    Current Status.--The Board indicated that pending results of that 
follow-up survey, NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as 
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-96-07. Commuter-Rail Emergency Exits--``Inspect all commuter rail 
equipment to determine whether it has: (1) easily accessible interior 
emergency quick-release mechanisms adjacent to exterior passageway 
doors; (2) removable windows or kick panels in interior and exterior 
passageway doors; and, (3) prominently displayed retro reflective 
signage marking all interior and exterior emergency exists. If any 
commuter equipment lacks one or more of these features, take 
appropriate emergency measures to ensure corrective action until these 
measures are incorporated into minimum passenger car safety 
standards.''
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated June 6, 1996. 
FRA indicated it had performed such inspections and provided detailed 
results. Further, FRA indicated it had convened a joint meeting of the 
RSAC Working Groups (Passenger Equipment Safety Standards and the 
Passenger Emergency Preparedness groups) on March 26, 1996. The 
remainder of FRA's response addressed contemplated action on each of 
the above three items.
    NTSB responded in letter dated March 12, 1997. NTSB indicated the 
Board had classified the first part of this recommendation, i.e., (1) 
easily accessible interior emergency quick-release mechanisms adjacent 
to exterior passageway doors, as ``Open--Acceptable Response'', and 
asked FRA to provide more specific information. The Board classified 
the second part of the recommendation, i.e., (2) removable windows or 
kick panels in interior and exterior passageway doors, as ``Open--
Acceptable Response'', and asked that FRA keep the Board informed of 
progress in this area. The Board indicated its agreement with FRA that 
it might be better to mark emergency exits inside cars with 
luminescent, rather than retro reflective material. Consequently, the 
Board has classified the third part of this recommendation, i.e., (3) 
prominently displayed retro reflective signage marking all interior and 
exterior emergency exists, as ``Open--Acceptable Alternate Response.'' 
NTSB further advised FRA should develop and issue interim standard to 
the commuter rail industry as quickly as possible.
    Current Status.--FRA published in the Federal Register on September 
23, 1997, an NPRM for Passenger Equipment Safety Standards which 
addresses this recommendation. The comment period on the NPRM ended 
November 24, 1997, and FRA intends to conduct hearings before issuing 
the final rule. NTSB presently has this recommendation classified as 
``Open--Acceptable Action.''
    R-96-13. Research--Flat Rail Heads--``Conduct appropriate research 
and develop a data base that can be used to assess the risk posed by 
flattened rail heads.''
    FRA advised NTSB on October 17, 1996, that FRA has requested the 
AAR, ASLRA and APTA to poll their members to determine frequency at 
which train derailments related to flattened head rails have occurred 
over the past several years. When these data are available, it will 
then be possible to judge the severity of the problem. Additionally, a 
Working Group was created within the RSAC for the purpose of 
recommending specific revisions of the track safety standards, set up a 
team to derive model regulatory language to support rulemaking should 
that become necessary. FRA indicated we would advise NTSB further as 
our work progresses.
    Current Status.--NPRM on revised 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety 
Standards, published in Federal Register July 3, 1997. The comment 
period is closed on revisions to Track Safety Standards, and FRA is 
preparing the final rule. Likely issuance expected in early 1998. Based 
upon FRA's response, NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as 
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-96-14. Regulation--Flat Rail Heads--``Develop guidelines, using 
the data compiled about the risk of flattened rail heads, for track 
inspectors to use in identifying flattened rail heads that may be 
hazardous to train operations and also regulations to ensure that 
corrective action is taken when such flattened rail head conditions 
have been identified.''
    FRA advised NTSB on October 17, 1996, that FRA has created a 
Working Group within the RSAC for the purpose of recommending specific 
revisions of the track safety standards, set up a team to derive model 
regulatory language to support rulemaking should that become necessary. 
FRA indicated we would advise NTSB further as our work progresses.
    FRA issued NPRM on revised 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards, 
published in Federal Register July 3, 1997. The comment period is 
closed on revisions to Track Safety Standards, and FRA is preparing the 
final rule. Likely issuance expected in early 1998. Section 213.337, 
``Defective rails'', contains new references to and definition of 
``flattened rails'', and the specifications to indicate when to be 
considered as defective rail.
    Current Status.--Based upon FRA's action and response, NTSB has 
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-96-50. Grade Crossing Inventory--``Review and modify the existing 
parameters of the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory to ensure 
that it meets the needs of both railroad and highway users. Include, as 
a minimum, information on highway-rail grade crossings having 
preemptive or interconnected signals. Once modified, review and update 
the information annually.''
    FRA responded that this effort would be completed by June 1997, and 
requested this recommendation be closed.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded August 6, 1997, indicating it was 
pleased to learn that FRA is modifying the inventory as requested by 
this recommendation and plans to finish by the middle of the year. 
Pending completion of this modification, NTSB classified this Safety 
Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-96-53. Steam Locomotives--Water Glass Column--``Update Title 49 
CFR Part 230 to require that each operating steam locomotive have 
either a water column or a water glass in addition to the water glass 
and three gage cocks that are already required.''
    This issue was accepted by the RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task force of 
the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week of 5/19/97 
and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group has 
reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve remaining 
details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997. 
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and 
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of 
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task 
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR 
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC, 
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional 
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the 
Steam Standards Task Force expressed support for this recommendation.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998, 
indicating the Board noted FRA's response proposes to revise 49 CFR 
Part 230 and require a steam locomotive to have a minimum of two sight 
glasses or a sight glass and a water column, and that if it has gage 
cocks, the gage cocks must be maintained. The Board has classified this 
Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-96-54. Steam Locomotives--Water Treatment--``Require steam-
locomotive operators to have a documented water-treatment program.''
    This issue was accepted by the full RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task 
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week 
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group 
reviewed the rule text, and efforts were made to resolve remaining 
details so that NPRM could be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997, 
indicating that FRA has tasked the Tourist and Historic Working Group 
(THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of the regulations 
contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task Force of the 
THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR Part 230 to 
THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC, or return 
them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional considerations. 
With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the Steam Standards 
Task Force did not expressed support for this recommendation.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998, 
indicating the Board is disappointed that the FRA has rejected this 
recommendation. While mentioning some agreement with FRA's points, the 
Board asserts that a documented water treatment program does not 
necessarily have to be expensive, rigid, or burdensome. The intent of 
the recommendation is simply to ensure that steam locomotive operators 
document their water-treatment activities. The Board also believes that 
an FRA regulation is the most effective way to ensure that water-
treatment is documented. Pending further discussion, NTSB has 
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Unacceptable 
Response.''
    R-96-55. Steam Locomotives--Basic Responsibilities--``Describe 
basic responsibilities and procedures for functions required by 
regulation, such as blowing down the water glass and washing the 
boiler.''
    This issue was accepted by the full RSAC on as TASK No. 96-5. Task 
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week 
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group 
has reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve 
remaining details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997. 
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and 
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of 
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task 
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR 
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC, 
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional 
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the 
Steam Standards Task Force did express support for this recommendation.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998, 
indicating the Board was pleased to learn that the FRA intends to 
clearly delineate basic responsibilities and procedures in the revised 
CFR. The Board also noted that the Volpe Center has been tasked to 
produce a training video that will be given to each steam locomotive 
operator. Pending revision of the applicable regulation, the Board has 
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-96-56. Hours of Service--Tourist Railroads--``In cooperation with 
Tourist Railway Association, Inc., promote awareness of and compliance 
with the Hours of Service Act.''
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997. 
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and 
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of 
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task 
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR 
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC, 
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional 
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation. The 
Steam Standards Task Force did expressed support for this 
recommendation, and support for FRA's working in tandem with the 
Tourist Railway Association to promote awareness of the Hours of 
Service Act.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998, 
indicating the Board was pleased to learn that industry members support 
FRA's involvement in this effort. Pending an opportunity for the Board 
to evaluate FRA's response to this recommendation, NTSB has classified 
this recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-96-57. Steam Locomotives--Crown Stay Feature--``Explore the 
feasibility of requiring a progressive crown-stay feature in steam 
locomotives.''
    This issue was accepted by the full RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task 
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week 
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group 
has reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve 
remaining details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997. 
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and 
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of 
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task 
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR 
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC, 
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional 
considerations.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998, 
indicating the Board was disappointed that the FRA will not address 
this issue in the CFR revision. Pending future work on this 
recommendation, NTSB has classified this recommendation as ``Open--
Unacceptable Response.''
    R-96-58. Steam Locomotives--Certification of Operators--``Develop 
certification criteria and require that steam-locomotive operators and 
maintenance personnel be periodically certified to operate and/or 
maintain a steam locomotive.''
    This issue was accepted by the full RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task 
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week 
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group 
has reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve 
remaining details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997. 
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and 
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of 
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task 
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR 
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC, 
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional 
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the 
Steam Standards Task Force expressed support for this recommendation 
and are investigating the feasibility of developing certification 
criteria for several classes of employees or volunteers involved in 
assessing job and task requirements.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998, 
indicating the Board is very concerned that FRA prefers a voluntary 
certification program. The Board indicated they believe the FRA should 
develop certification criteria that apply to the steam-locomotive 
industry and simply require that steam locomotive operators and 
maintenance personnel be certified at a level that ensures competence 
and safety. Therefore, the Safety Board believes that certification 
should cover all steam locomotive engineers, irrespective of location 
or connections. Pending a review of the proposed certification program, 
the NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Open--Unacceptable 
Response.''
    R-96-59. Steam Locomotives--Modern Techniques. ``FRA, in 
cooperation with the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
Inspectors (NBBPVI) and TRAIN should: Update 49 CFR Part 230 to take 
advantage of accepted practical modern boiler-inspection techniques and 
technologies, to minimize interpretation based on empirical experience, 
and to maximize the use of objective measurable standards.''
    This issue was accepted by the full RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task 
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week 
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group 
has reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve 
remaining details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
    FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997. 
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and 
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of 
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task 
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR 
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC, 
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional 
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the 
Steam Standards Task Force expressed support for this recommendation, 
and are accomplishing this through its partnership with FRA on the 
RSAC/THWG task force.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998, 
indicating the Board was pleased to learn that the industry supports 
this recommendation. NTSB has classified this recommendation as 
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-96-70. Event Recorder Testing--``Revise 49 CFR 229.25(e)(2) to 
require that event recorders, including microprocessor-based event 
recorders that are equipped with a self-test function, be tested during 
the quarterly inspections of the locomotive in such a manner that the 
entire event recording system, including sensors, transducers, and 
wiring, is evaluated. Such testing should include, at a minimum, a 
review of the data recorded during actual operation of the locomotive 
to verify parameter functionality as well as cycling all required 
recording parameters and determining the full range of each parameter 
by reading out recorded data.''
    FRA responded to NTSB under date of August 15, 1997, indicating 
this recommendation has been referred to the RSAC committee for 
handling.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded September 30, 1997, indicating the 
Board agrees that the RSAC may develop acceptable event recorder 
crashworthiness standards, other technical standards and long-term 
policy. Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Open--
Acceptable Response.''
    R-96-71. Event Recorder Inspections--``Develop and implement a 
program that specifically addresses carrier compliance with 49 CFR 
229.25(e)(5).''
    FRA responded to NTSB under date of August 15, 1997, indicating 
this recommendation has been referred to the RSAC committee for 
handling.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded on September 30, 1997, indicating 
that as a minimum, the FRA should require that all event recorders 
(including microprocessor-based, self-testing recorders) be read out 
during the quarterly inspection to verify their functionality, until 
the RSAC can develop detailed inspection procedures for evaluating the 
entire recording system. The need to properly inspect, test and 
maintain the entire event recording system is an ongoing requirement. 
Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Open--Unacceptable 
Response.''
    R-96-72. Event Recorder Inspection Form--``Revise your form F6180-
49A to include event recorders in the other items to be inspected 
section on the form.''
    FRA responded to NTSB under date of August 15, 1997, indicating 
this recommendation has been referred to the RSAC committee for 
handling.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded on September 30, 1997, indicating 
the Board was disappointed with FRA's decision to refer the safety 
recommendation to a working group of RSAC. NTSB stated that because 
recorder inspections are now required, it seems logical to list the 
recorder on the form as an item to be inspected. The form was last 
revised in 1985, and the requirement that event recording be inspection 
during a locomotive's quarterly inspection went into effect in 1995. 
Until the FRA has taken the recommended action, NTSB classified this 
recommendation as ``Open--Unacceptable Response.''
    R-96-73. Event Recorder Lead Locomotive--``Inform the industry that 
the placement of event recorders other than in the lead locomotive will 
not record the required data as though the event recorders were in the 
lead locomotive, and ensure compliance with 49 CFR 229.135(a).''
    FRA responded to NTSB under date of August 15, 1997, indicating 
this recommendation has been referred to the RSAC committee for 
handling.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded on September 30, 1997, indicating 
NTSB's position that this recommendation does not require that the RSAC 
participate in the process. NTSB indicated that informing the industry 
is the responsibility of the FRA, not the RSAC. Until the FRA has taken 
the recommended action, the Board classified this recommendation as 
``Open--Unacceptable Response.''
    R-97-01. Color Vision Testing--Engineers--``Revise the current 
color vision testing requirements for locomotive engineers to specify, 
based on expert guidance, the test to be used, testing procedures, 
scoring criteria, and qualification standards.''
    This issue was accepted by the full RSAC on 10/31/96 as TASK No. 
96-6. First working group meeting held 1/7 thru 1/9, 1997. Meeting to 
review NPRM language scheduled 10/7/97. Expected consensus approval and 
submission to full RSAC by 10/15/97.
    FRA advised NTSB that a working group within RSAC is developing a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the locomotive engineer 
certification regulation to address this recommendation.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised October 9, 1997, pending a successful 
rulemaking in response to this recommendation, this Safety 
Recommendation has been classified as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-97-02. Engineer Certification Requirements--``Require as a 
condition of certification that no person may act as an engineer with a 
known medical deficiency, or increase of a known medical deficiency, 
that would make that person unable to meet medical certification 
requirements.''
    This issue was accepted by the full RSAC on 10/31/96 as TASK No. 
96-6. First working group meeting held 1/7 thru 1/9, 1997. Meeting to 
review NPRM language scheduled 10/7/97. Expect consensus approval and 
submission to full RSAC by 10/15/97.
    FRA advised NTSB that a working group within RSAC is developing a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the locomotive engineer 
certification regulation to address this recommendation.
    Current Status.--NTSB on October 9, 1997, advised pending a 
successful rulemaking in response to this recommendation, this Safety 
Recommendation has been classified as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
    R-97-09. Recording of Crew Voice Communications--``Amend 49 CFR 
Part 229 to require the recording of train crewmembers' voice 
communications for exclusive use in accident investigations and with 
appropriate limitations on the public release of such recordings.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating FRA is 
continuing to review this recommendation and expects to be able to 
report a substantive response within the next 60 days. FRA's 
preliminary assessment is as follows.
    This is a new recommendation in the rail mode and appears to stem 
from a single accident. Although the discussion in the Silver Spring 
Accident Report points to the unavailability of information concerning 
the conversations in the control compartment prior to the accident, it 
is not clear from the Report what specifically what--apart from 
confirming the clear implications of the Report narrative--would have 
been gained from documenting those conversations. In what ways would 
the public response likely have varied?
    Unlike event recorders, which have value in determining rules 
compliance prior to an accident, use of voice recorder information 
would, as suggested by the recommendation, be limited exclusively to 
use in an accident investigation. Other uses would be viewed as 
inappropriate electronic monitoring of employees' conversations in the 
workplace, whether or not work related.
    Capturing voice recordings in a locomotive cab presents practical 
issues not encountered in aviation. Headsets with intercom capability 
are the exception, rather than the rule, in locomotive cabs. 
Significant inter-relationships exist between efforts to limit 
occupational noise exposure in cabs and the effective recording of 
conversations. Issues of comfort have also been raised by employees and 
their representatives when use of headsets has been proposed, given 8-
12 hour shifts and varying environmental conditions in locomotive cabs.
    Release of voice recordings subsequent to an accident present 
additional issues. As the NTSB is well aware, a special statutory 
exception has been required in the aviation context to prevent 
inappropriate use of voice recordings following events drawing 
significant notoriety. Enacting fully effective regulations in the 
absence of special-purpose legislation thus does not appear to be 
feasible. The Board has not yet utilized the power conferred under its 
charter statute to recommend such legislation.
    Despite these reservations, FRA continues to evaluate this 
recommendation with a view toward offering a more fully considered 
response. FRA's review would be aided by clarification of the Board's 
intent. Is it desired that all locomotives, including freight 
locomotives, be equipped with voice recorders? It is intended that 
passenger locomotives typically operated by a single employee be 
included, even if the locomotive cab is inaccessible to other crew 
members required to be stationed in the occupied passenger coaches (as 
if often the case in intercity service)? From the point of view of the 
Board's objectives for accident investigation, would a recording of 2 
hours' duration be sufficient, as apparently suggested by the Report 
narrative at page 51-52?
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-10. Failure Modes and Effects Analyses--``Require 
comprehensive failure modes and effects analyses, including a human 
factors analysis, for all signal system modifications.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, and agrees with 
the need to conduct sound analysis in the design of any method of 
operation. (In rail parlance, a ``method of operation'' includes both 
the physical infrastructure and the pertinent rules that govern train 
movements.) We believe that such analysis should be conducted at the 
system level, considering the attributes of the signal or train control 
system, the associated operating rules, and the known data concerning 
human performance under similar conditions. This should be contrasted 
with potentially ad hoc analysis conducted in an attempt to analyze the 
variable effects of minor changes in a method of operation at a 
particular location. FRA doubts that such methods could succeed due to 
the absence of meaningful input data bearing on the degree of risk 
posed by potential failure modes.
    The Safety Board's discussion of this issue in the Silver Spring 
Report suggests that, had the recommended analyses been conducted when 
the subject traffic control system was installed on the line in 
question, the accident may have been prevented by one of several means. 
The Board references adoption of a delayed-in-block rule change as one 
of the alternative steps that might have been taken (Report at 53), 
along with placement of an exit signal at the station, implementation 
of a cab signal system, or implementation of a new positive train 
separation system. Among these options, only the placement of the exit 
signal would have constituted a site-specific response, and even in 
that case there would have been implications for other locations (see 
discussion below). For instance, installation of a cab signal system 
would hardly be a proportional response to the possibility of an 
engineer forgetting an approach signal because of an unscheduled stop 
at a passenger station. Taken as a problem occurring in a single 
location, no action at all would likely have been supported by any form 
of analysis, unless it is assumed that the analysts were imbued with 
extraordinary powers to discern how the following factors would in fact 
correspond in time at that location within the useful life of the 
signal system:
  --Light passenger load permitting the train crew to linger in the 
        control compartment.
  --Unusual environmental conditions.
  --The requirement to stop for passengers who had boarded the wrong 
        train.
  --The recent dovetailing of seniority rosters, leading to possible 
        preoccupation by at least one crewmember with matters other 
        safety operations.
  --Distraction associated with broken communications as two trains 
        passed at the location where defect detectors were positioned.
    It is clear that issues broader than modification of the signal 
system in the vicinity of the Kensington Station on the Brunswick line 
are implicated in the Board's concerns. Broad, rather than narrow 
actions are in fact indicated by those concerns. In fact, FRA has taken 
emergency action to address the weakness in the method of operation 
which led to the Silver Spring accident. That improvement is in effect 
across the rail system--not just at a few locations where signals are 
relocated or other modifications are made during any calendar period.
    FRA conducted a sampling of commuter, intercity, and Amtrak 
passenger lines, not equipped with cab signals, to establish a cross 
section for the nation of passenger stations which have exit signals. 
The FRA determined that only a small number of passenger stations are 
equipped with exit signals. Many of the signals that are visible upon 
the exit of a station are located there solely due to the braking 
distance and spacing requirements of 49 CFR Sec. 236.24. This 
regulation requires each roadway signal to be located with respect to 
the next signal or signals which govern train movements in the same 
direction to provide proper distances for reducing speeds or stopping 
by means of a brake application, other than an emergency application, 
before reaching the point where reduced speed or stopping is required. 
A reduced speed aspect requires spacing adequate to slow to prescribed 
speed before reaching the next signal. An aspect requiring a stop at 
the next signal requires spacing adequate to stop without an emergency 
brake application before reaching the next signal.
    The following examples are representative of the data that was 
gathered by FRA field personnel:
  --The Norfolk Southern Piedmont Division is a two-track main line 
        signaled for traffic in both directions (TCS). Amtrak runs on 
        this line from Lynchburg, Virginia, milepost 172.5 to milepost 
        15.0 near Springfield, Virginia. Virginia Railway Express also 
        runs on this line from milepost 35.9 to milepost 15.0. There 
        are 17 passenger stations used by Amtrak and VRE on this line. 
        All signals are spaced for braking distance with only the 
        Lynchburg and the BRU-VRE-Yard stations located where the 
        signals are used for station exit.
  --Trains operating on the ``SamTrans'' Peninsula Line in are governed 
        by signal indications displayed by wayside signals that are 
        spaced braking distance apart. There are 46 passenger stations 
        on this line between San Francisco and San Jose, California. 
        None of the stations have passenger station sidings or use exit 
        signals.
    These and other findings confirm that there is no established 
practice in the industry to place distant signals for interlockings and 
control points at locations exiting stations. Obviously, many locations 
exist where distant signals are placed between stations and the next 
home signal or control point; however, this placement is governed by 
required stopping distances, not the objective of reminding the 
engineer of the signal indication following the station stop. Issuance 
of E.O. 20 has addressed a common hazard at each of these locations 
where a delayed in block rule was not already applicable.
    FRA and FTA have previously noted their commitment to examination 
of safety issues related to transit grant proposals affecting commuter 
rail service. This focus will be useful over the coming years to 
promote a migration to more secure train control systems. Again, the 
objective should be initiatives of significant scope that have the 
potential to address safety risks that are common to a variety of 
physical locations.
    FRA agrees that FMEA and other analytical techniques are useful 
means of structuring the debate over appropriate signal and train 
control technology for various types of operations. This type of 
analysis is particularly appropriate for use in development of a new 
type of train control system. However, FRA believes that application of 
FMEA on a case-by-case basis to every situation where signals may be 
altered or relocated would, in practice, become a highly subjective 
exercise dependent on the judgment of the individual analyst. The 
behavior of human operators is powerfully influenced by the operating 
environment (vehicles, control systems, grades and curvatures, sight 
distances, weather), human interactions (crew resource management, 
public interface), and characteristics of the individual operator (age, 
experience, training, health, alertness, etc.) Serial, microscopic 
focus on one element of this complex at a single location is unlikely 
to produce a balanced allocation of resources for safety optimization. 
Decisions concerning signal arrangements and railroad operating rules 
should be based on the best data available and should provide guidance 
that is useful across one or more classes of common situations, 
recognizing opportunities for broader improvements than would be 
possible with a highly situational orientation.
    As noted above, the delayed in block provision of E.O. 20 addresses 
the particular issue placed in sharp focus by the Silver Spring 
accident. The broader issue of engineers failing to heed approach 
signals in a wide variety of circumstances is addressed daily through 
operational tests, certificate actions under the Locomotive Engineer 
Certification rules, and a variety of other ways, including a recent 
safety directive that addresses these issues across a broad front (62 
FR 35330; June 30, 1997). However, ultimately positive train control 
(PTC) systems capable of maintaining train separation and enforcing 
other movement restrictions should be our objective.
    Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA has 
initiated a review of Positive Train Control technology that will 
include development of performance standards for such systems. Safety 
Board staff are assigned as advisors to the RSAC working group. This 
effort will include a strong emphasis on integration of railroad 
operating rules and the train control apparatus into a secure method of 
operation. In response to the Board's recommendations, FRA will urge 
inclusion of FMEA techniques as part of the safety acceptance procedure 
for new methods of operation.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-11. Separate Records for Passenger Operations--``Develop and 
maintain separate identifiable data records for commuter and intercity 
rail passenger operations.''
    FRA accomplished these improvements in automated data format for 
all reports filed on or after January 1, 1997. FRA appreciates the 
support of the Safety Board in accomplishing these improvements in our 
data system.
    The issued referred to in the Board's recommendations concerns the 
ability to accomplish machine sorts of accident/incident data specific 
to individual passenger rail operations. The FRA has been collecting 
accident, incident and operational data from most major commuter 
railroads directly, and analysis of that data has not been a problem. 
However, data for railroads using Amtrak to provide service as a 
contract operator have been included in Amtrak reports, along with 
intercity results. Difficulties have also existed where freight 
railroads serve as contract operator. In July 1995, the Federal 
Railroad Administration sent a letter to the commuter railroads using 
Amtrak to provide service. The letter requested that beginning January 
1996 these railroads were to report injuries, accidents and operation 
data (train miles, passenger miles, etc.) under their own reporting 
initials. The commuters could request Amtrak to report for them, but 
Amtrak could not aggregate the commuters' data into the Amtrak reports. 
Due to logistical problems and Amtrak software problems this request 
could not be fulfilled in 1996.
    In the interim the FRA issued revisions to the Railroad Accident 
Reporting Rule that mandated a number of changes in reporting. A second 
letter was sent in February 1997 to commuter railroads instructing them 
to comply with the Federal Regulations on accident reporting. Data for 
these railroads are now being reported to FRA in a format that permits 
clear identification of the entity on whose behalf the service is 
provided. For 1997 and subsequent years, the FRA will be able to report 
frequency and rates of accidents and casualties by intercity service, 
commuter service and rail freight. Again, FRA appreciates the Safety 
Board's initiative and support in accomplishing this improvement in our 
data systems.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-12. Redundant Systems-Passenger Trains--``Require, in the 
interim of a positive train separation control system being available, 
the installation of cab signals, automatic train stop, automatic train 
control, or other similar redundant systems for all trains where 
commuter and intercity passenger railroads operate.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating the 
presence of passenger service, particularly relatively dense passenger 
service, has been a leading criterion in the installation of automatic 
cab signals (ACS), automatic train stop (ATS) or automatic train 
control (ATC) throughout the modern history of American railroading. 
Current regulations create incentives for installation of these systems 
by authorizing higher train speeds. However, signal-based technology is 
expensive, and passenger operators cannot achieve significant increases 
in safety on the lines that they utilize absent parallel investments by 
freight operators (which are often the owners and/or dominant users of 
the lines on which passenger trains operate). The answer to this 
problem is more affordable technology and commitments for joint action 
by freight and passenger service providers. It is important that we 
avoid any burden on passenger service providers that would result in 
service cutbacks and diversion of passengers to less safe forms of 
transportation.
    Fortunately, innovative train control approaches are emerging that 
can meet the safety needs identified by the Board in its 
recommendations. Importantly, freight and passenger operators need to 
implement positive train control systems that are interoperable, so 
that maximum benefits are achieved. In the electrified environment of 
northeastern railroading, Amtrak's Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement 
System provides a strategy that can both support the safety of high-
speed operations and provide a platform for innovative automatic train 
stop strategies (under implementation on New Jersey Transit).Outside 
the northeast, communication-based approaches using differential 
correction of Global Positioning System location data bear great 
promise.
    In short, FRA concurs that implementation of more capable train 
control systems can contribute significantly to the safety of passenger 
rail service. In fact, in general where collision risk would otherwise 
be very high, appropriate systems are already in place. This accounts 
for the excellent safety record of passenger railroads.
    FRA is pressing for implementation of PTC and similar systems in 
ways that are reasonable taking into consideration the mix of traffic, 
division of benefits flowing from the systems, opportunities for 
interoperability of onboard equipment, and the readiness of available 
technology. To bring about PTC, FRA has set out to--Assess risk on rail 
corridors that could be reduced by PTC systems; Update and refine cost-
benefit analyses; Demonstrate and evaluate PTC technologies; Invest in 
enhanced train control on the Northeast Corridor; Promote 
interoperability of PTC systems; Facilitate introduction of new 
technology through regulatory action; and Support Federal policies 
necessary for successful PTC systems.
    The first step in determining priority safety needs and 
opportunities is to better define risk. The corridor risk study that 
was discussed with the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee on June 24 
provides an important tool that we have asked RSAC to refine and apply 
in analyzing this issue. Passenger service is a prominent factor in 
this analysis.
    FRA is also taking concrete steps to demonstrate and deploy 
positive train control systems. On the Northeast Corridor, the Nation's 
most heavily utilized passenger line, FRA is supporting installation of 
an Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES), complementing the 
existing ACS/ATC system. See Notice of Proposed Order at 62 FR 62097 
(11/20/97). FRA and the Federal Transit Administration have also been 
encouraging passenger railroads to consider investments in PTC systems. 
New Jersey Transit Rail Operations has significant plans to use its 
version of the ACSES system to achieve intermittent train stop 
capabilities on their lines off the NEC.
    Through a grant to the State of Michigan, FRA is funding 
development of an Incremental Train Control System with capabilities 
superior to ACS or ATS, and that system should be cut in for revenue 
service in 1998. A grant to the State of Illinois for development of 
high-speed PTC will also support passenger rail safety as a primary 
objective, and we are working to promote appropriate participation by 
the host freight railroad.
    FRA has been working actively with the BNSF /Union Pacific Positive 
Train Separation test program and has been in active conversation with 
these railroads regarding their future plans for even more capable 
systems. At the same time, we have sought to create opportunities 
through the States of Washington and Oregon for consideration of 
passenger safety needs.
    On September 30, 1997, FRA asked the RSAC to take on three related 
tasks that explore the future of positive train control. These tasks 
address costs and benefits of PTC (including business benefits), the 
readiness of available technology, and possible timetables for making 
interoperable PTC a reality on major rail lines. The RSAC has formed a 
working group that includes advisors from the Board's staff. This group 
will met for the first time in mid-November, and FRA has asked the 
group to provide a status report with milestones at the next meeting of 
the full Committee on January 27, 1998.
    An early product of the RSAC effort will be a proposed revision to 
current signal and train control regulations, recognizing and creating 
a predictable environment for new forms of train control that can 
accomplish positive train separation and other safety functions at 
reduced cost, permitting more wide-scale application.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-13. Positive Train Separation-Passenger Trains--``Require the 
implementation of positive train separation control systems for all 
trains where commuter and intercity passenger railroads operate.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating the 
same response as given for R-97-12 above.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-14. Passenger Car Interior Quick-Release Mechanisms--``Require 
all passenger cars to have easily accessible interior emergency quick-
release mechanisms adjacent to exterior passageway doors and take 
appropriate emergency measures to ensure corrective action until these 
measures are incorporated into minimum passenger car safety 
standards.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating that 
the Board is aware, a majority of passenger cars are equipped as 
suggested in the recommendation. FRA has taken action under Emergency 
Order No. 20 to improve emergency egress from rail passenger cars. In 
addition, as an interim action the Safety Board and FRA have worked 
with two passenger railroads to eliminate the requirement for use of 
special tools to access the emergency quick release mechanism, and 
those actions are completed (on MARC and SEPTA). In response to the 
Board's earlier recommendations, FRA has issued proposed rules to 
require the relocation of manual release mechanisms to a position 
adjacent to the exterior door (62 FR 49728, 49807; Sept. 23, 1997). 
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards proposes to require a retrofit of remaining cars, within 2 
years of the effective date of the final rule (vice 10-15 years as 
proposed by the commuter authorities). FRA will endeavor to resolve 
this issue expeditiously following conclusion of the public comment 
period.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-15. Passenger Car--Emergency Exiting--``Require all passenger 
cars to have either removable windows, kick panels, or other suitable 
means for emergency exiting through the interior and exterior 
passageway doors where the door could impede passengers exiting in an 
emergency and take appropriate emergency measures to ensure corrective 
action until these measures are incorporated into minimum passenger car 
safety standards.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating action 
has already been take to improve emergency egress and is exploring 
other options to ensure adequate egress capacity under all emergency 
scenarios, including those suggested by the Board. However, neither 
kick panels nor removable windows in doors has been satisfactorily 
demonstrated as to feasibility, and either is capable of increasing 
safety risk if misapplied to exterior doors.
    Emergency windows are provided under current regulations to provide 
reliable egress in the exceptional case where doors are inoperative, 
are blocked by accident debris, or lead to areas that are unacceptable 
as evacuation routes for other reasons. FRA has taken emergency action 
to ensure that emergency windows are operative and properly marked, and 
the Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness NPRM includes a requirement 
for periodic inspection into the future. The Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards Working Group has evaluated kick panels in exterior doors as 
unacceptable for passenger safety reasons.
    The Working Group agreed that new passenger cars be required to 
have manual releases capable of opening car body side doors from both 
inside and outside the cars. The Working Group further agreed that 
persons be able to easily access and utilize the manual releases 
without the use of special tools or implements. Additionally, the 
Working Group agreed to strengthen existing emergency window exit 
requirements by specifically directing that each bi-level car have four 
window exits on each level and that each sleeper car have an emergency 
window exit in each sleeping compartment. These proposals are contained 
in the NPRM referenced above.
    Removable windows in doors may be feasible, but the available 
dimensions for these installations in current door designs are not 
encouraging. Existing door windows claimed to be usable for egress are 
generally vertical in their longest dimension and are located well 
above the center of gravity of the average person, severely limiting 
their utility for high capacity and rapid egress. The degree of 
responsiveness of the glazing to blows designed to remove the window is 
also open to serious question. Accordingly, the American Public Transit 
Association task force on Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards is 
examining the full range of options for kick panels and removable 
windows. In addition the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 
is evaluating egress capacity on a systems level. These complementary 
efforts will be brought together as the second NPRM for Passenger 
Safety Standards is developed in 1998.
    The first practical application of the NTSB suggestion will be made 
under the Tier II standards in the Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards, which requires a kick-out panel or window. Under design 
drawings, Amtrak is incorporating an elongated window in its passageway 
doors. This problem is relatively simple for a high-speed trainset in 
which the end door on the car always leads to another passenger car, so 
the degree of risk (collateral safety risk and cost) associated with 
the innovation is small. FRA appreciates the leadership of the Board in 
calling attention to this opportunity.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-16. Passenger Car--Emergency Exit Marking--``Issue interim 
standards for the use of luminescent or retro reflective material or 
both to mark all interior and exterior emergency exits in all passenger 
cars as soon as possible and incorporate the interim standards into 
minimum passenger car safety standards.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating FRA 
ordered interim improvements in emergency signage in February of 1996 
under Emergency Order No. 20. FRA is preparing a final rule for 
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness based upon a February 1997 
proposal that includes use of luminescent and retro reflective 
materials as recommended.
    Temporary marking and instruction requirements were contained in 
Emergency Order No. 20 (Notice No. 1, 61 FR 6876; February 22, 1996) 
(Notice No. 2, 61 FR 8703; March 5, 1996 ). Railroads have complied 
with those requirements. In a joint meeting of working groups 
supporting the development of NPRM's for Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards and Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness held on March 26, 
1996, it was agreed that future marking should be luminescent on the 
inside (where no light source may be available under worst case 
conditions) and retro reflective on the outside (to respond to portable 
lighting used by emergency responders).
    FRA published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Passenger Train 
Emergency Preparedness on February 24, 1997 (62 FR 8330), and the 
comment period closed on April 25. Comments from the National 
Transportation Safety Board dated June 2, 1997, generally support the 
NPRM. The NPRM provides, at section 239.107, for luminescent marking of 
door exits and retro reflective marking of doors designated for 
emergency rescue access. Similar provisions are made for window egress 
and access in a proposed amendment to section 223.9. FRA has reviewed 
the docket and has discussed the remaining issues in the proceeding 
with the Working Group, which includes an advisor from the staff of the 
NTSB. FRA is preparing a final rule for issuance at the earliest 
possible date.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-17. Passenger Car--Independent Power Sources--``Require all 
passenger cars to contain reliable emergency lighting fixtures that are 
each fitted with a self-contained independent power source and 
incorporate the requirements into minimum passenger car safety 
standards.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating the 
proposed passenger equipment safety standards address emergency 
lighting, but would permit continued use of battery power common to all 
emergency lighting circuits in the particular car. The concept of a 
power source at each fixture, as a regulatory requirement, is novel and 
was introduced by the Board well after the NPRM entered clearance. 
Accordingly, FRA had only limited opportunity to evaluate this 
suggestion in cooperation with the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 
Working Group.
    FRA findings in recent accidents support the Safety Board's implied 
concern that placement of electrical conduits and battery packs below 
the floor of passenger coaches can result in damage that leads to the 
unavailability of emergency lights precisely at the time they are most 
needed. However, from initial investigation it is not certain whether 
current ``ballast'' technology provides illumination of sufficient 
quality with reliable maintainability. FRA will work with the PRESS 
task force to determine appropriate action. FRA would appreciate any 
technical advice that the Board staff may be able to offer regarding 
successful strategies employed by in other transportation modes.
    FRA has already presented this issue to the Passenger Equipment 
Safety Standards Working Group and will aggressively pursue this option 
for more reliable emergency illumination.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-18. Passenger Car--Inspection & Maintenance--``Provide 
promptly a prescribed inspection and maintenance test cycle to ensure 
the proper operation of all emergency exit windows as well as provide 
that the 180-day inspection and maintenance test cycle is prescribed in 
the final rule.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating 
Passenger railroads completed emergency window inspections under E.O. 
20 by April 20, 1996. Most railroads have continued to include these 
inspections in periodic inspections of the equipment. FRA is preparing 
final rules based on proposals for regular inspection at a 180-day 
cycle. FRA may take interim action pending the effective date of the 
final rule, if necessary by amending the emergency order.
    As further information, we are advised that commuter railroads are 
voluntarily including checks of emergency windows in their periodic 
maintenance programs.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-19. Passenger Car--Functionality Exterior Door--``Require that 
all exterior emergency door release mechanisms on passenger cars be 
functional before a passenger car is placed in revenue service, that 
the emergency door release mechanism be placed in a readily accessible 
position and marked for easy identification in emergencies and 
derailments, and that these requirements be incorporated into minimum 
passenger car safety standards.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating the 
RSAC Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group agreed that 
easily accessible exterior emergency door release mechanisms be 
required on new passenger cars. See NPRM on Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards (62 FR 49728, 49807; Sept. 23, 1997). The NPRM on Passenger 
Train Emergency Preparedness would apply marking/instruction 
requirements to all cars so equipped, including the present fleet (62 
FR 8330, 8358; February 24, 1997).
    Unlike discussions concerning interior emergency door release 
mechanisms intended for quick use by passengers to exit a train in a 
life-threatening situation, however, there was no strong advocacy 
within the Working Group to retrofit existing passenger cars with 
emergency door release mechanisms on car exteriors. Such exterior 
mechanisms would principally be used by emergency-response personnel to 
gain access to passenger cars and rescue individuals unable to exit the 
train on their own either through a door or an emergency window exit. 
In response to the recommendation, FRA and the Working Group will 
further evaluate implementing this requirement on existing cars in the 
second phase of the rulemaking. FRA will advise the Working Group of 
this issue as the initial final rule is crafted, and railroads impacted 
by the relocation of the interior release can evaluate whether to 
include the exterior release in their program.
    FRA agrees that existing exterior releases should be maintained in 
functional condition and will seek agreement to ensure that periodic 
inspection requirements included in the initial final rule include 
specific attention to this issue (although arguably the matter is 
covered by the language already proposed).
    Despite our regulatory proposal and lack of active opposition, FRA 
continues to have concerns with respect to marking the exterior 
releases and providing instructions for their use on the outside of the 
vehicle. This is a difficult issue, since prominent markings and 
instructions to operate a simple pull ring or lever constitute an open 
invitation for vandalism (which can result, among other things, in 
undetected loss of emergency equipment). Incidents of vandalism might 
necessitate separate locking of out-of-service equipment, and we would 
certainly want assurance that the locking was disengaged at each door 
location before the equipment was placed in service. Should this not be 
done, passengers might be unable to exit trains and rescuers would not 
be able to enter, at least at the subject door locations. An alternate 
approach is appropriate training for emergency responders with respect 
to entry into passenger equipment. Training of emergency responders was 
a key point of discussion for finalization of the rule on Passenger 
Train Emergency Preparedness. There was broad agreement that access to 
equipment should be a key element of training that passenger railroads 
should make available.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-20. Passenger Car--Flammability--``Require that a 
comprehensive inspection of all commuter passenger cars be performed to 
independently verify that the interior materials in these cars meet the 
expected performance requirements for flammability and smoke emissions 
characteristics.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating FRA 
altered the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards NPRM after it had 
entered clearance to address fire safety for existing equipment. 
Section 238.105 of the proposed rule (62 FR 49728, 49800) would require 
railroads to conduct tiered fire safety analyses to identify 
vulnerabilities in the various series of the existing passenger car 
fleet and to take responsive action as indicated.
    FRA believes that this approach addresses the intent of the 
concerns raised in the Board's report on the Silver Spring accident. As 
noted in the Board's report, ``Had the materials [in the cab car] met 
current [FRA] performance criteria . . . the outcome would not have 
been any different because of the presence of diesel fuel as an 
ignition source. The fire would have spread quickly whether the 
interior materials of the MARC passenger cars had met current 
performance criteria regarding flammability and smoke emissions 
characteristics. . . .''
    NTSB-RAR-97/02 at 63-64. Further, the Board took strong exception 
to the adequacy of the current criteria, stating that they are ``not 
useful in predicting the safety of the interior environment of a 
passenger car in a fire.'' Id. We assume therefore, that the Board 
intended a review of fire safety in existing cars that both considers 
the discrete hazards of materials that might vary widely from criteria 
in existing rail and transit guidelines and the likelihood that those 
hazards might combine to create unacceptable fire safety risks. The 
analysis called for the NPRM would require that, to extent practicable 
given available knowledge, these issues be fully considered.
    In addition, FRA has consulted with the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation and other Department of Transportation modal 
administrations with respect to the status of fire safety standards and 
research. The Office of the Secretary is responding to the Board 
regarding our intermodal coordination. Please note that FRA is 
continuing its contract research through the National Institute for 
Standards and Technology to improve the quality and replicability of 
materials testing criteria and methods and is also maintaining liaison 
with efforts of the transit industry and the National Fire Protection 
Association to work toward a better-integrated systems approach to fire 
safety.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-21. Train Dispatcher Record of Train Movements--``Update 49 
CFR Part 228.17, Train Dispatcher's Record of Train Movements, to 
include the same parameters for electronic recordkeeping of the 
dispatcher's record of train movements.''
    FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating that 
Section 228.17 states information collection requirements that are 
equally applicable, whether the record of train movements is maintained 
in hard copy or electronic format. At the CSXT operations center in 
Jacksonville, some of this data loads automatically to the sheet from 
other computer systems, while other data must be manually entered by 
the dispatcher. During routine inspections, FRA has worked to ensure 
that the computer-based train sheet is capable of receiving all 
pertinent fields of information (as it has been for several years) and 
that dispatchers routinely enter that information (which sometimes is 
not done in the wake of an accident due to distraction by other tasks). 
In addition, FRA has encouraged the railroad to provide for automatic 
data transfer of weather information.
    FRA will continue to work with the railroad at Jacksonville, and 
with other carriers, to promote sound record keeping in compliance with 
49 CFR Part 228. However, for the present this is a compliance issue 
that must be handled with all of the dispatcher desks at Jacksonville 
with respect to each of the 1,400 train sheets generated daily. We are 
not aware of any regulatory change that could simplify this quality 
control task, but would certainly be willing to discuss any specific 
suggestions.
    Without question, use of electronic record keeping should enhance 
the information available for safety purposes, and we believe that is 
very much the case presently when all pertinent systems are utilized. 
Retrievable data in a contemporary dispatching center is normally far 
more extensive and historically reliable than data derived from a 
traditional hand-written train sheet. Centralized traffic control 
system records (signal event logs) provide detailed information that 
can be analyzed to determine train movements. Dispatcher voice tapes 
and computer-aided dispatching systems document authorities and 
information conveyed to train crews. Weather information is separately 
maintained in electronic or hard copy format following electronic 
delivery from a commercial service that provides very detailed data and 
forecasts. This wealth of information is available for accident 
investigation and other purposes. Future revisions to Part 228 could 
include inputs to the ``train sheet'' from sources not presently 
tapped. However, it would be important to clearly identify our core 
objectives and the safety results that we would expect to achieve 
before proceeding. Whether or not technically associated with the 
``train sheet,'' this data is useful today for a variety of purposes.
    Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial 
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
    R-97-55. Traction Motor Current--``Inform the railroad industry 
that traction motor current is not a valid indicator of throttle 
position, and the requirement to record throttle position contained in 
49 CFR Part 229.5(g) cannot be met by recording traction motor current. 
Ensure that all operators currently using traction motor current as a 
substitute for throttle position modify their event recording systems 
to monitor and record throttle position directly.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation received January 6, 
1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able to 
prepare a substantive response by April 30, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-97-56--Tests and Inspections Event Recorders--``Pending the 
results of your Railroad Safety Advisory Committee Event Recorder 
Working Group and your implementation of suitable requirements 
concerning event recorder system maintenance, require that 
microprocessor-based event records equipped to perform self-tests be 
subject to the testing and inspection procedures currently applicable 
to all other types of event recorders.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation just received January 
6, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able to 
prepare a substantive response by April 30, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-97-57. Movable Miter Rails--``Expand the scope of your track 
safety standards to include special trackwork such as movable miter 
rails and ensure that the condition and operation of special trackwork 
are included, when appropriate, in all Federal Railroad Administration 
track inspections.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation received January 6, 
1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able to 
prepare a substantive response by April 30, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-97-58. Survey of Movable Bridges--``Provide, in full or summary 
form, the results of the Federal Railroad Administration Movable 
Bridges Survey to all railroads and rail rapid transit agencies.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received January 6, 
1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able to 
prepare a substantive response by April 30, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-98-01. Controls and Switches in Locomotives--``Alert Locomotive 
Manufacturers and Railroad Operators about the dangers posed by 
improperly located safety significant controls and switches in 
locomotives.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February 
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able 
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-98-02. Loaded Weight Information--``Require railroads to ensure 
that the actual loaded weights of cars in a train are provided to the 
train crewmembers or, if the loaded weights are unknown, to implement a 
method to ensure that the maximum loaded weight is assigned.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February 
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able 
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-98-03. Review Train Handling Practices--``Require Railroads to 
review steep-grade train-handling practices and, if necessary, make 
changes that will preserve a margin of stopping ability should a 
dynamic braking system fail.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February 
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able 
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.'' NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-98-04. Research Maximum Speed based on weights--``Carry out 
research, investigation and analysis to determine maximum authorized 
train speed for safe operation of trains of all weights, using speed-
based margins of safety that can be easily measured by train 
crewmembers.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February 
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able 
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-98-05. Dynamic Brake Requirements--``Separate the Dynamic Brake 
Requirements from the Power Brake Law Rulemaking and immediately 
conclude rulemaking to require that railroads verify that the dynamic 
braking systems on all locomotive equipped with dynamic brakes are 
functioning properly before trains are dispatched.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February 
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able 
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-98-06. Dynamic Brake Indicator in Controlling Locomotive--
``Require railroads to ensure that all locomotives with dynamic braking 
be equipped with a device in the cab of the controlling locomotive unit 
to indicate to the operating engineer that the real-time condition of 
the dynamic brakes on each trailing unit.''
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February 
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able 
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
    R-98-07. Formal Training for Retainer Settings--``Require railroads 
to implement formal training on correct retainer setting and use 
procedures for train crewmembers who may set or use air brake retainer 
valves.
    Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February 
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able 
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current 
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
 Listing of All NTSB Safety Recommendations to FRA for the Last Three 
 Years That Have Been Addressed and Closed, Indicating Whether or Not 
                           NTSB Was Satisfied
                     (from may 1, 1995 to present)
    R-88-58. Heat-Resistant Gaskets--``Establish performance standards 
for determining the acceptability of heat-resistant gaskets required to 
be used on tank cars.''
    FRA, in cooperation with the Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA), issued final rules on June 5, 1996, under Docket 
HM-216. These new regulations require that each tank car used for the 
transportation of anhydrous ammonia, flammable gases, and gases that 
are poisonous by inhalation, must have gaskets designed to create a 
positive seal so that a release of the material to the environment will 
not occur under normal transportation conditions. The regulations also 
require that specific factors, such as the temperature of the lading, 
compatibility of the gasket with the lading, pressure, and size of the 
manway, must be considered in the design of the gasket. The new 
regulations published also prohibit the use of sealants to install 
these gaskets.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on February 10, 1997, that because 
the new regulations meet the intent of the Board's recommended action, 
Safety Recommendation R-88-58 is classified as ``Closed--Acceptable 
Action.''
    R-88-59. Tank Car Manway Openings. ``Prohibit from Hazardous 
Materials service the use of tank cars that have a manway opening 
located below the level of the liquid being transported.''
    The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), in 
cooperation with FRA, issued two final rules under Dockets HM-175A and 
HM-201 on September 21, 1995. Among other issues addressed, these final 
rules require full tank head protection for new and existing tank cars 
constructed of aluminum and nickel.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on January 23, 1996, that the Board 
recognizes that the new regulations issued on September 21, 1995, 
prohibit the transportation of hazardous materials in tank cars that 
have manway openings below the liquid level of the lading in the tank 
cars, as was recommended. Accordingly, NTSB classified this 
recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
    R-88-60. Heat Resistance of Sealants--``Evaluate the effect on 
gasket compatibility and heat resistance performance of sealants used 
for installing gaskets on tank cars, and if the use of sealants is 
allowed. Establish performance criteria to determine which sealants are 
acceptable and the conditions for their use.''
    FRA, in cooperation with the Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA), issued final rules on June 5, 1996, under Docket 
HM-216. These new regulations require that each tank car used for the 
transportation of anhydrous ammonia, flammable gases, and gases that 
are poisonous by inhalation, must have gaskets designed to create a 
positive seal so that a release of the material to the environment will 
not occur under normal transportation conditions. The regulations also 
require that specific factors, such as the temperature of the lading, 
compatibility of the gasket with the lading, pressure, and size of the 
manway, must be considered in the design of the gasket. The new 
regulations published also prohibit the use of sealants to install 
these gaskets.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on February 10, 1997, that because 
the new regulations meet the intent of the Board's recommended action, 
Safety Recommendation R-88-60 is classified as ``Closed--Acceptable 
Action.''
    R-88-61. Affix information on tank cars--``Where special procedures 
or material specifications or dimensions are required for maintaining 
the integrity of tank cars, require such information to be permanently 
and conspicuously affixed to the tank car.''
    The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), in 
cooperation with FRA, issued two final rules under Dockets HM-175A and 
HM-201 on September 21, 1995. Among other issues addressed, these final 
rules each facility where tank cars are constructed, repaired, or 
modified must have an Association of American Railroads (AAR)-approved 
quality assurance program, including written procedures to ensure that 
work performed on a tank car conforms to approved designs. The new 
regulations also require that designated design plans, repair and 
inspection records, and construction certificates be retained by the 
tank car owner and transferred when ownership of the tank car changes.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded on January 23, 1996, stating the 
Safety Board previously indicated that this approach would be an 
acceptable alternative response to the recommendation. However, the 
Safety Board also expressed concern about the need for periodic audits 
to ensure that the quality assurance programs were effective. Although 
audits of quality assurance programs are not specifically addressed in 
the newly issued regulations, the AAR-approved quality assurance 
programs required under these rules are subject to an accreditation 
process and annual audits by the AAR. By requiring tank car facilities 
to have AAR-approved quality assurance programs that are subject to 
periodic audits, the newly issued regulations satisfactorily address 
the Board's previous concern. Therefore, NTSB classified this 
recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Alternative Action.''
    R-88-63. Quality Control for Tank Car Shops--``Establish quality 
control requirements for tank car manufacturers and tank car repair 
shops sufficient to ensure that actions taken comply with Federal 
regulations and with any conditions established in the Association of 
American Railroad's approvals for manufacture, repair, or modification 
of rail tank cars.''
    The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), in 
cooperation with FRA, issued two final rules under Dockets HM-175A and 
HM-201 on September 21, 1995. Among other issues addressed, these final 
rules each facility where tank cars are constructed, repaired, or 
modified must have an Association of American Railroads (AAR)-approved 
quality assurance program, including written procedures to ensure that 
work performed on a tank car conforms to approved designs. The new 
regulations also require that designated design plans, repair and 
inspection records, and construction certificates be retained by the 
tank car owner and transferred when ownership of the tank car changes.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded on January 23, 1996, stating the 
Safety Board noted that the regulations issued on September 21, 1995, 
require each facility involved in the manufacture, repair, or 
modification of rail tank cars to have a written quality assurance 
program approved by the AAR. The AAR's requirements and accreditation 
process for its quality assurance programs satisfactorily address both 
Safety Recommendations R-88-63 and R-88-64. Therefore, NTSB classified 
this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
    R-88-64. Training and Written Procedures--``Require that tank car 
repair shops develop and maintain current written procedures to guide 
their employees in performing work on tank cars and that their 
employees be trained on those procedures.''
    The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), in 
cooperation with FRA, issued two final rules under Dockets HM-175A and 
HM-201 on September 21, 1995. Among other issues addressed, these final 
rules each facility where tank cars are constructed, repaired, or 
modified must have an Association of American Railroads (AAR)-approved 
quality assurance program, including written procedures to ensure that 
work performed on a tank car conforms to approved designs. The new 
regulations also require that designated design plans, repair and 
inspection records, and construction certificates be retained by the 
tank car owner and transferred when ownership of the tank car changes.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded on January 23, 1996, stating the 
Safety Board noted that the regulations issued on September 21, 1995, 
require each facility involved in the manufacture, repair, or 
modification of rail tank cars to have a written quality assurance 
program approved by the AAR. The AAR's requirements and accreditation 
process for its quality assurance programs satisfactorily address both 
Safety Recommendations R-88-63 and R-88-64. Therefore, NTSB classified 
this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
    R-89-49. Specifications for Securing Closure Fittings--``Assist and 
cooperate with the Research and Special Programs Administration in 
amending 49 CFR Part 179 to require that specifications for securing 
closure fittings, such as minimum torque values for sealing bolted 
closures and gasket specifications, be determined and provided by tank 
car designers and manufacturers.''
    FRA working in cooperation with the AAR, jointly developed new 
sections to the AAR tank car manual. These new sections incorporate 
procedures and standards for inspecting, cleaning, replacing, and 
testing manway covers; for selecting gaskets based on the gasket 
material and dimensions; and for maintaining and tightening eyebolts 
and nuts on the manway assembly. In addition RSPA, with assistance from 
the FRA, published new regulations on September 21, 1995, (under 
Dockets HM-175A and HM-201) that establish performance standards 
requiring that all closure fittings on tank cars be properly tightened 
in place.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on August 13, 1997, that the Board 
found that the new regulations supplement the AAR standards and, 
together, satisfy the intent and objective of this recommendation. 
Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable 
Action.''
    R-90-38. Hazardous Material Train Lists--``Revise 49 CFR 174.26(b) 
to require the train crew to maintain, at all times, a document 
reflecting the current position of hazardous materials cars in the 
train.''
    FRA advised that working with the Research and Special Programs 
Administration, published new regulations under Docket HM-206 on 
January 8, 1997. These regulations include a revision to 49 CFR 174.26, 
which now requires a train crew to document the current position of 
each rail car containing a hazardous material. Further, the crew must 
also update the document to indicate changes in the placement of the 
rail car within the train.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on August 13, 1997, that the Board 
found that the revised regulation satisfied this Safety Recommendation. 
Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable 
Action.''
    R-91-26. Alerters--``In conjunction with the study of fatigue of 
train crewmembers, explore the parameters of an optimum alerter system 
for locomotives.''
    FRA's initial written response, dated June 28, 1993, indicated that 
FRA had awarded two contracts to develop proposals to modify the 
existing alerter systems so they cannot be reset by reflex action. 
Reports were due in July that will provide information on development 
of a model. We anticipate significant progress on this recommendation 
before the end of 1993. FRA requested an ``Open-Acceptable Response'' 
status. NTSB provide written response in letter dated September 16, 
1993, indicating the Board classified this Safety Recommendation as 
``Open--Acceptable Action.''
    FRA provided written update to NTSB under date of August 12, 1997. 
Therein, FRA indicated that after approval of funding for prototype 
construction of an alerter meeting the objectives, the contractor 
advised FRA there was not a sufficient market for the device to justify 
its further development. Therefore, the contractor withdrew their 
proposal. Because the accident in question involved fatigue and train 
control issues, FRA indicated action in both of those areas would 
address the core issues in the 1990 accident. FRA indicated it had 
decided not to allocate further scarce resources to this project, and 
requested NTSB to close it based on our alternative action.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded on November 4, 1997, indicating the 
Board's disappointment to learn that the FRA plans to take no further 
action on this recommendation. The Board mentioned their approval of 
FRA's rail labor and management project concerning fatigue , the Board 
continues to believe that a successful countermeasure to fatigue is an 
optimum alerter system that cannot be reset by reflex action. Since the 
FRA has declined to act on this recommendation and requested closure, 
the Safety Board has classified this recommendation as ``Closed--
Unacceptable Action.''
    R-91-39. Work-Record Data--``Develop a Uniform Simplified Format 
for Work-Record Data Collected by the Rail Carriers.''
    FRA advised NTSB on August 9, 1995, that recent evolutions in data 
capture have allowed the possibility for a uniform national simplified 
format for electronic data entry of hours of service purposes. Because 
our present hours of service recordkeeping regulations require 
``signatures'', FRA is encouraging all railroads to apply for waivers 
to facilitate their development of this electronic format for capturing 
this data in a simplified and uniform manner. FRA has published an 
electronic recordkeeping guide containing a recommended format for 
hours of duty reports produced by an automated system. CSX 
Transportation, Inc. was the first railroad to achieve waiver approval 
for its electronic system. At present, three other railroads have 
requested waiver approval with several others expressing interest.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on November 21, 1995, that the Board 
hopes that the suggested format will be adopted. However, should this 
not be the case, the Board will revisit this issue at some point in the 
future. NTSB therefore classified this recommendation as ``Closed--
Acceptable Action.''
    R92-01. Training and Evaluation-Locomotive Engineers--``Seek and 
include other input, such as comments about the quality of railroad 
training programs, from both instructing locomotive engineers and 
apprentice engineers in the programs for which approval is being sought 
and include such input in the evaluation process.''
    FRA advised NTSB on August 21, 1992, that FRA plans to implement a 
two-phase, in-depth review process of railroad training programs for 
locomotive engineers. FRA field inspectors have been instructed to 
establish ``listening posts'' during the course of their daily 
inspections.
    FRA further advised NTSB on August 3, 1995, that in addition to the 
listening posts that have been conducted since 1995, FRA has developed 
an audit plan for use during the review of each railroad's training 
program which will capture student and instructor comments for use in 
the evaluation of the program. FRA also advised that all Class I and 
Class II railroads had been reviewed, and of the ongoing process for 
evaluating all railroad training programs. Additionally, the American 
Short Line Railroad Association (ASLRA) in conjunction with FRA, has 
developed a generic training program for the approximate 570 ASLRA 
members.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on November 15, 1995, that based on 
FRA's action, this recommendation is classified as ``Closed--Acceptable 
Action.''
    R-92-11. Minimum Standards-Locomotive Fuel Tanks--``Establish, if 
warranted, minimum performance standards for locomotive fuel tanks 
based on the research called for in NTSB's Safety Recommendation R-92-
10.''
    FRA advised NTSB on February 10, 1993, that FRA conducted a meeting 
on February 2, 1993, with the American Association of Railroads (AAR), 
General Motors Electro-motive Division and General Electric to discuss 
their willingness to cooperate in a joint locomotive fuel tank research 
program. Due to funding constraints within these organizations, 
cooperative research or analysis may be limited in scope.
    Subsequently, AAR working in cooperation with FRA, adopted a 
recommended practice to provide basic performance requirements for 
locomotive fuel tanks on four- and six-axle diesel-locomotives. This 
practice, which incorporates the results of individual railroad efforts 
to develop and test candidate fuel containment modifications under 
service conditions, is effective for all freight locomotives built 
after July 1, 1995.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on October 17, 1995, the Board has 
some concerns about locomotives built before July 1, 1995, because they 
will remain in service for several years. However, the Board will 
address that issue in future pertinent accident investigations. 
Nevertheless, the Board believes that the adoption of the recommended 
practice is a positive step and, as a result, no longer sees the need 
at this time to pursue Federal regulations to establish minimum 
performance standards for locomotive fuel tanks. NTSB therefore 
classified this recommendation as ``Closed--No Longer Applicable.''
    R-92-12. Accident Data Collection-Locomotive Fuel Tanks--``Instruct 
Field Personnel to Obtain from Accident Investigations Locomotive Fuel 
Tank Size and, to the extent practicable, the duration and severity of 
locomotive fuel tank fires in conjunction with the agency's ongoing 
efforts to improve the recording of data pertaining to post-crash fires 
involving locomotives.''
    FRA advised NTSB on February 10, 1993, that as a part of a larger 
effort to comply with Public Law 102-365, FRA field personnel will 
collect data on fuel tank capacity and the severity of locomotive fuel 
fires during accident investigations. A copy of the instructions issued 
and the data collection forms to be used was enclosed.
    Subsequently, FRA revised its ``FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/
Incident Reports'' to provide instructions to all railroads to indicate 
this information of the narrative for each reportable rail equipment 
accident/incident.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on October 17, 1995, that as a result 
of these revisions, fuel tank data are now routinely collected, 
including data on locomotive units involved, amount of fuel released, 
capacity of fuel tanks, and consequences of fire. Therefore, NTSB 
classified this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
    R-92-13. Alternative Fuels--``Develop, in conjunction with the 
Association of American Railroads, a formal methodology for reviewing 
the use of alternative fuels and fuel tenders in the railroad 
industry.''
    FRA advised NTSB on February 10, 1993, that the railroads and 
equipment manufacturers that are pursuing alternative fuel development 
programs recognize the need to fully involve the FRA in the early 
stages of these programs. FRA has met with representatives of the 
railroads and manufacturers to offer advice on design considerations 
and test parameters to ensure safe use in rail transportation. FRA 
believes the current informal cooperative process is adequate at the 
present time. A more formal process can be determined after the 
development programs are analysed and the industry has specific plans 
and proposals for normal revenue service use of alternative fuels 
technology.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised FRA on October 17, 1995, given that 
the use of liquid natural gas fuel tenders continues to be limited to a 
very few railroads, that the FRA continues to monitor and assess 
industry's limited use of alternative fuels and fuel tenders, and that 
there has been no Safety Board accident experience with alternative 
fuels or fuel tenders, the Board reclassified this safety 
recommendation as ``Closed--Reconsidered.''
    R-92-21. Nondestructive Testing of Tank Cars--``Evaluate, with the 
cooperation and assistance of the Association of American Railroads, 
the Railway Progress Institute, and the Chlorine Institute, 
nondestructive testing techniques and determine how such techniques can 
best be applied for period testing and inspection of all tank cars that 
transport hazardous materials.''
    FRA advised NTSB that several research projects to evaluate various 
nondestructive techniques were in progress, and that this research will 
continue over several years and evolve as new nondestructive 
technologies emerge, and tank car design and construction changes. In 
addition, the new rules issued on September 21, 1995, require the use 
of specific nondestructive techniques to inspect designated welds on 
the bottom of tank cars.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded on January 23, 1996, that the Board 
considers the research under way, and the new regulations requiring the 
use of nondestructive testing for the inspection of tank cars meet the 
intent of the recommendation. Therefore, NTSB classified this 
recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
    R-94-01. Inspection Methods-Rail Shelling--``Research and develop, 
with the assistance of the Association of American Railroads, 
inspection methods that will identify internal defects in rail that has 
significant shelling and other surface conditions.''
    FRA advised the Board that research to detect transverse head 
defects regardless of rail head surface conditions is being pursued by 
the contract defect detection community. A prototype system is expected 
to be deployed for debugging in 1996. Given this accomplishment, FRA 
does not see a need to invest in government sponsored research that 
could lead to a product eventually competing with the private sector. 
FRA is promoting an investigation of electro-magnetic transduction 
technology as a potential improvement over current systems.
    Current Status.--NTSB responded on April 9, 1996, indicating the 
Board is aware of research by the manufacturers of rail defect 
detection equipment, and while these efforts offer the possibility of 
advancements, the Board continues to believe the presence of severe 
surface conditions prevent an effective inspection of the rail head. 
Because FRA has expressed no willingness to sponsor or encourage 
research and development of new inspection methods capable of 
identifying internal defects in rail with significant head surface 
conditions, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Closed--
Unacceptable Action.'' Note: FRA has since addressed this 
recommendation in the NPRM revising its Track Safety Standards.
    R-94-02. Research and Standards Rail Surface Conditions--``Perform 
the necessary research and develop standards that: (1) provide defined 
limits of allowable rail surface conditions (such as shelling) that can 
hinder the identification of internal defects, and (2) require remedial 
action for rail with surface conditions that exceed defined limits.''
    FRA advised NTSB that given the myriad combination of sizes, shapes 
and locations in which rail surface conditions can exist and the rarity 
with which an actual obscured defect progresses to failure, we regard 
the chances of producing a useful outcome from such research effort is 
highly doubtful considering the resources to which we have access. 
Since a technique for rail flaw inspection that is not inhibited by any 
combination of rail surface conditions is being developed currently in 
the private sector, we see no need to apply scarce resources to 
research a goal that we view as impractical and which has a good 
probability of being unnecessary. In developing track safety standards, 
we are considering requiring a substantial speed restriction for rails 
where signal loss indicates a ``nontest.''
    NTSB responded on April 9, 1996, indicating FRA's reply has the 
potential of being an alternate means of satisfying this 
recommendation. However, the Board noted that nearly 2 years have 
passed since this Safety Recommendation was issued, and FRA provided no 
indication of possible future time frame when the Track Safety 
Standards might be revised. Because of the long time between issuance 
of this recommendation, and the uncertainty that any action taken would 
satisfy this recommendation, NTSB classified this recommendation as 
``Closed--Unacceptable Action.'' Note: FRA has since addressed this 
recommendation in the NPRM revising its Track Safety Standards.
    R-94-15. Conduct Study-Positive Train Separation--``Identify 
possible uses for Positive Train Separation Control Systems data and 
information and conduct a study to identify ways in which this 
information can be used to enhance grade crossing safety.
    FRA advised NTSB on March 24, 1995, that FRA supports the 
exploration of all options for integration of PTC systems with 
technologies that may enhance safety at highway-rail grade crossings, 
and cited various potential applications. In some cases, existing 
signal-based technologies may offer more secure and cost-effective 
solutions than alternatives with little or no service history. In other 
cases, advanced electronics coupled with radio frequency communication 
paths may offer excellent solutions that would not otherwise be 
affordable. FRA and the Federal Highway Administration are working to 
identify possible linkages that might improve safety at highway-rail 
grade crossings, and are presently evaluating a ``Vehicle Priority 
Alerting System'' at the Department of Transportation's Test Center 
near Pueblo, Colorado. Additionally, FRA is exploring with the Union 
Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroads the possible demonstration of 
one or more grade crossing technologies in connection with the Positive 
Train Separation project.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised FRA on November 8, 1995, that the 
Board was pleased to note FRA's intention to identify candidate 
technology for field trails, and requested FRA to provide periodic 
updates as to progress. NTSB therefore classified this recommendation 
as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
    R-95-010. Hazardous Materials--Corrosive Products--``Require, in 
cooperation with RSPA, that the shipper or party using a tank car to 
transport materials corrosive to the tank determine the periodic 
inspection interval and testing technique for linings and coatings, and 
require that this information be provided to parties responsible for 
the inspection and testing of tank cars.''
    FRA advised NTSB that this agency's agreement with this 
recommendation, which supported the efforts of the FRA and the Research 
and Special Projects Administration's proposed standards under Docket 
HM-201. These proposals would require the owner of a lined or coated 
tank car transporting a material corrosive to the tank to determine the 
periodic inspection and test interval and testing technique for the 
material used.
    On September 20, 1996, FRA advised NTSB that the Research and 
Special Program Administration, in cooperation with FRA, recently 
published three final rules that will greatly enhance the safe 
transportation of hazardous materials in tank cars by railroads. These 
final rules were based on several recommendations issued by the NTSB, 
petitions for rulemaking, and RSPA's and FRA's own initiative. RSPA, on 
September 21, 1995, published a final rule that requires the owner of 
the lining or coating to determine the inspection interval and test 
techniques for the lining or coating. On June 26, 1996, RSPA published 
a correction document under Dockets HM-175A and HM-201, that required 
the owner of a lining or coating to provide the periodic inspection 
interval, test technique and acceptance criteria for the lining or 
coating to the person responsible for qualifying the lining or coating.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised February 10, 1997, that the Board 
notes that RSPA, with the cooperation of FRA, published on June 26, 
1996, a correction document under Dockets HM-175A and HM-201, that 
requires the owner of lining or coating to provide the periodic 
inspection interval, test technique, acceptance criteria for the lining 
or coating to the person responsible for qualifying the lining or 
coating. NTSB indicated this satisfies the concerns earlier expressed 
by the Board. Therefore, the Board classified this safety 
recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
    R-95-044. Two-Way End-of-Train Device--``Separate the Two-Way End-
of-Train Requirement from the Power Brake Law Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, and Immediately Conclude the End-of-Train Device Rulemaking 
so as to require the use of two-way end-of-train telemetry devices on 
all cabooseless trains.''
    FRA published on January 2, 1997, the final rule setting minimum 
performance and operational standards for two-way end-of-train devices 
and required their use on a variety of freight trains. This regulation 
was effective on July 1, 1997.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised June 30, 1997, that the Board 
understands that the FRA has completed the rulemaking requested by this 
recommendation and therefore has classified this safety recommendation 
as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
    R-95-045. Determine Highway-Rail Crossings with Preemption--
``Cooperate with the State Directors of Transportation and the Federal 
Highway Administration to determine, at those Highway-Rail Grade 
Crossings where control of a highway traffic signal is preempted by 
train movements to determine if the preemption allow sufficient time 
for vehicles to safely clear the crossing. Until corrective action has 
been taken, take appropriate steps for those crossings determined to 
have insufficient time for vehicles to safely clear.''
    FRA advised that the Secretary of Transportation directed the 
formation of a grade crossing safety task force. As one of the task 
force's initiatives, all states would be apprised of the availability 
of both the FRA and FHWA to provide cooperative assistance. Prior to 
receipt of NTSB's recommendation, FRA had already requested railroads 
to start necessary processes to determine how many and which of their 
crossings should be reviewed. The FRA also became prepared to accept 
from the states lists, by crossing number, on diskette, of crossings 
with preemption circuitry and to enter this information into the U.S. 
DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory. This action allow for 
the ability to provide all concerned a permanent record of the 
identified crossings. FRA will develop procedures for states and 
railroads to routinely update this information in the future. Finally, 
states have been advised of FRA's ability to provide them lists of 
crossings at which railroads have reported accidents that have occurred 
at crossings having warning devices interconnected with highway 
signals.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on February 19, 1997, that the Board 
commends the FRA for cooperating with the State Directors of 
Transportation and the FHWA in identifying and inspecting more than 
3,000 highway-rail grade crossings nationwide where control of the 
highway traffic signal is preempted by train movements. Based on these 
efforts, the Board classified this safety recommendation as ``Closed--
Acceptable Action.''
    R-96-012. Technical Bulletin--Flattened Rail Head Conditions--
``Develop not later than 12/31/96, an interim Technical Bulletin 
authorizing track inspectors to take corrective action to prevent the 
potential hazard of flattened rail head conditions to train 
operations.''
    FRA referred this recommendation to the Track Working Group of the 
RSAC. From this participative effort, FRA issued Technical Bulletin T-
97-01, dated February 6, 1997, to all Federal and State Track 
Inspectors. This document contained a discussion of the August 3, 1994 
derailment of Amtrak Train No. 49 at Batavia, New York, conclusions, 
and guidelines for inspectors to follow in event similar rail 
conditions are found.
    Current Status.--NTSB advised on April 11, 1997, that the Board was 
pleased to receive a copy of the requested Technical Bulletin dated 
February 6, 1997. Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as 
``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
                safety improvements fiscal years 1993-96
    Question. In your fiscal year 1999 justification (page 9), under 
the general statement--priorities, a number of safety improvement 
statistics are cited. Please restate them completely, including time 
frame measured, and absolute numbers that drive the percentage 
decreases.
    Answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Percent
                  Performance measures                      1993       1994       1995       1996    change 1993-
                                                                                                          96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail-Related Fatalities................................      1,279      1,226      1,146      1,039        -18.8
Employee-On-Duty Casualties............................     15,410     13,111     10,811      9,232        -40.1
Train Accident Rate....................................       4.54       4.07       3.91       3.85        -15.2
Grade Crossing Collision Rate..........................       3.47       3.22       2.85       2.56        -26.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  need for additional safety positions
    Question. FRA is requesting an increase of 32 positions for the 
railroad safety program. Given the fact that safety has improved in the 
railroad industry during the last five years, why is it critical to 
increase the number of positions at this time?
    Answer. FRA believes the requested number of field positions is the 
minimum number required to respond to the needs of its safety program 
given the dramatic changes and increasing safety challenges affecting 
the railroad industry. To meet the growing safety challenges, the 32 
positions will be used in the field to bolster FRA's Safety Assurance 
and Compliance Program (SACP), the site inspection program, and the 
grade crossing safety and trespasser prevention program.
    Recent railroad mergers have created mega-carriers, the largest of 
which employ more than 56,000 employees and traverse two-thirds of the 
country. At the same time, shortline spinoffs have resulted in the 
emergence of nearly 700 separate railroads; there are now more 
railroads in the United States than there are people in FRA's Office of 
Safety. Also, sharply diverging trends in rail traffic and employment 
continue unabated. As rail traffic continues to rise to record high 
levels, straining the capacity of the nation's rail network, employment 
has declined to the lowest level in this century, eliminating safety 
redundancy and greatly diminishing the margin for error. Furthermore, 
increasing rail traffic density and the encroachment of urban and 
suburban communities along railroad rights-of-way has caused increasing 
rail related deaths and injuries among pedestrians.
    To meet these growing safety challenges FRA seeks 32 additional 
field positions. The agency intends to further leverage the 
effectiveness of these positions by utilizing their efforts in support 
of the SACP. By building safety partnerships with rail labor and 
management and conducting coordinated multi-regional team based safety 
audits that focus on the identification and mitigation of the root 
causes of systemic safety concerns, FRA maximizes the safety in the 
growing rail industry in the most efficient manner possible.
    These positions will also be used to meet the growing needs of the 
site inspection program, many of which result from important 
Congressional safety mandates, including the Grade Crossing Signal 
Safety Standards, Two Way End-of-Train Device Regulations, Roadway 
Worker Protection Rule and the pending revisions to the Track Safety 
Standards and Power Brake Regulations.
    Specifically, FRA intends to establish eight Principal Inspectors 
(PI's) positions, one per FRA region, who will plan, coordinate and 
participate in SACP safety audits and shortline railroad inspections. 
Sixteen Safety Inspectors will be distributed throughout selected 
regional offices to perform site-specific inspections, participate in 
SACP audits, and act in advisory capacities in the Railroad Safety 
Advisory Committee and Technical Resolution Committees.
    The final eight positions will be assigned (one per Region) to 
assist Regional Crossing Managers and Regional Administrators primarily 
to enhance FRA's Trespasser Prevention Program It is in this area that 
the greatest number of rail-related fatalities occur. In 1997, 
preliminary data show that trespasser fatalities for the first time 
clearly eclipsed highway-rail crossing fatalities as the largest single 
component of fatalities in railroad operations, rising from 471 
reported in 1996 to 530 in 1997, based on current projections. FRA 
believes that improvements in this area will occur through requested 
staffing augmentation in the grade crossing and trespass prevention 
area. These positions will also support the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 
Safety Program and will assist Regional intermodal, intra departmental, 
State, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, city and local government 
liaison activities.
                            safety increases
    Question. Please prioritize each of the requested increases in the 
Office of Safety budget. Which two aspects of the requested increase 
are most important and why?
    Answer. FRA's fiscal year 1999 request for the Office of Safety 
reflects an increase of $4,909,000 over fiscal year 1998 and includes 
the following increases in the priority order: $3.068M to maintain 
current services; $1.691M to support 32 additional positions; $.100M 
for RSAC; and $.050M for Planning & Evaluation Project.
    FRA cannot absorb non-discretionary increases, especially in the 
Office of Safety. Funding is essential and any decreases below current 
services will result in a reduction in personnel or a reduction in 
work--which will only exacerbate the number of issues Safety will not 
be able to address.
Staffing
    The request of $1.691 million supports 32 additional safety 
employees. All 32 safety employees will be assigned to field offices. 
Given the large growth in rail traffic which has strained rail network 
capacity, the steady decline in rail employment which has greatly 
reduced the margin for error, the emergence of huge mega-carriers and 
the proliferation of shortline railroads; FRA believes the requested 
number of field positions is the minimum number needed to respond to 
the needs of its safety program.
    Particularly for 24 positions, (eight Principal Inspectors and 16 
Safety Inspectors), FRA intends to leverage their effectiveness by 
utilizing their efforts in support of the SACP. These positions are 
needed to build labor/management safety partnerships and to conduct and 
participate in coordinated team based safety audits to maximize the 
safety of the growing rail industry in the most efficient manner 
possible. Furthermore, these positions are essential to meet the 
growing needs of the site inspection programs, many of which result 
from important Congressional and statutory safety mandates, such as 
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness, Passenger Equipment Safety 
Standards, revised Track Safety Standards, Power Brake Regulations and 
Radio Communication Standards.
    The eight remaining positions are needed to assist Regional 
Crossing Managers and Regional Administrators, primarily to bolster 
FRA's Trespasser Prevention Program. It is in this area that the 
greatest number of rail-related fatalities occur. They are also needed 
to help coordinate agency support and coordinate intermodal, intra 
departmental, State, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, city and 
local government liaison activities.
RSAC
    The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) provides FRA with 
advice and recommendations on the development of safety standards and 
other important issues facing the federal railroad safety regulatory 
program. This process shifts the focus of FRA's regulatory program to 
one of greater collaboration with the regulated community in arriving 
at mutually satisfactory solutions. RSAC produces consensus on 
underlying factual issues, the range of options, and the recommended 
solutions. By harnessing the combined wisdom, resources and experience 
of railroad industry experts who have the greatest knowledge and 
interest in promoting rail safety, FRA is able to leverage its 
resources to simultaneously conduct a number of major rulemakings, 
often much more quickly than can be accomplished under the traditional 
approach. RSAC is undertaking some of FRA's toughest, most 
controversial regulatory challenges.
    The RSAC structure consists of voting representatives from 27 
organizations representing large and small railroads, rail labor 
organizations, state associations, rail passenger representatives, 
suppliers, other interested parties, and two associate representatives 
from agencies with rail responsibilities in Canada and Mexico. Initial 
funding levels did not anticipate the overwhelming industry embracement 
of this process. Railroad labor and management are dedicating 
significant resources to the success of this collaborative rulemaking 
process. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, an estimated 500 
full Committee, Working Group and Task Force members and alternates 
have participated in more than 75 meetings to address 13 issues such as 
track safety standards and positive train control. The magnitude of the 
resources dedicated is reflective of the participants' commitment to 
the success of this process.
    The additional $100,000 requested would support the fiscal year 
1999 RSAC activities at an optimum level for reducing FRA's regulatory 
backlog. Railroad labor and management are dedicating significant 
resources to the success of this rulemaking process. Funding below the 
requested level would severely impact the effectiveness of this process 
and the resulting critical contributions to public safety envisioned by 
all parties dedicated to the success of collaborative rulemaking.
Planning and Evaluation Project
    Funding for the planning and evaluation project will provide FRA 
with the means to provide the best allocation of inspectors to railroad 
sites of greatest risk. This project provides a geographical 
information mapping system, with linkages to human resources, railroad 
accident rates, traffic volumes, emergency response needs, passenger 
volumes, and hazardous material concentrations. Without this tool, FRA 
will not be as effective as it could be in directing its limited 
inspector resources to locations where inspectors can have the greatest 
impact on achieving FRA's GPRA safety goals.
                         safety staff by region
    Question. Please list, by region, the current safety inspection 
field offices and number of personnel at each field office. Please 
indicate how the additional personnel associated with the fiscal year 
1999 increase will be allocated within this regional/field office 
framework.
    Answer. The information follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year--
          Region/Field Office          ---------------------- Difference
                                           1998       1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeastern Region:
    Cambridge.........................         22         26           4
    Buffalo...........................          5          5  ..........
    Clifton Park......................          7          7  ..........
    Newark............................         14         14  ..........
    Bangor \1\........................          1          1  ..........
Eastern Region:
    Lester............................         25         29           4
    Pittsburgh........................         11         11  ..........
    Charleston \1\....................          5          5  ..........
    Cincinnati........................          4          4  ..........
    Cleveland.........................          4          4  ..........
    Columbus \1\......................          3          3  ..........
    Hanover...........................          7          7  ..........
    Harrisburg \1\....................          2          2  ..........
    Norfolk...........................          4          4  ..........
    Roanoke \1\.......................          4          4  ..........
    Toledo............................          1          1  ..........
Southern Region:
    Atlanta...........................         22         26           4
    Birmingham........................          6          6  ..........
    Charlotte.........................          8          8  ..........
    Jacksonville......................          9          9  ..........
    Knoxville \1\.....................          1          1  ..........
    Louisville \1\....................          7          7  ..........
    Memphis \1\.......................          4          4  ..........
    Nashville.........................          4          4  ..........
    Mobile............................          5          5  ..........
Central Region:
    Chicago...........................         34         38           4
    Detroit...........................          6          6  ..........
    Indianapolis......................          9          9  ..........
    Ft. Snelling......................          8          8  ..........
    Peoria \1\........................          2          2  ..........
Southwestern Region:
    Hurst.............................         27         31           4
    Houston...........................         12         12  ..........
    El Paso...........................          4          4  ..........
    Little Rock.......................          5          5  ..........
    New Orleans.......................          8          8  ..........
    Oklahoma City.....................          4          4  ..........
    San Antonio \1\...................          4          4  ..........
    Shreveport........................          3          3  ..........
Midwestern Region:
    Kansas City.......................         24         28           4
    Des Moines........................          3          3  ..........
    Lakewood..........................         11         11  ..........
    Omaha.............................          8          8  ..........
    St. Louis.........................          8          8  ..........
    Wichita \1\.......................          2          2  ..........
Western Region:
    Sacramento........................         23         27           4
    Riverside.........................         10         10  ..........
    Salt Lake City....................          6          6  ..........
Northwestern Region:
    Vancouver.........................         23         27           4
    Billings..........................          8          8  ..........
    Bismarck..........................          5          5  ..........
    Pocatello.........................          5          5  ..........
    Seattle \1\.......................          5          5  ..........
    Spokane \1\.......................          4          4  ..........
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................        456        488          32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office closed; all employees telecommute.

                         field office closings
    Question. What, if anything, has FRA done to reduce the number of 
small field offices during the last year? Are any cost savings 
reflected in the budget? How many field offices have been closed during 
the last three years (please name locations)? Have any new offices been 
established during this period.
    Answer. FRA is currently implementing the final phase of its 
telecommuting project, which began in fiscal year 1996. This project 
has been extended to allow eligible employees in all regions the 
opportunity to work at home or telecommute. Under this project, FRA 
plans to close a total of 15 offices, including 13 that have already 
been closed. In addition, by the end of the project, FRA will have 
reduced overall facility space in 8 offices.
    No new field offices have been established since fiscal year 1996. 
The chart below lists offices that have been closed or had space 
reductions as a result of the telecommuting project over the last three 
years.
    FRA projects that fiscal year 1998 closings will result in an 
annual savings of approximately $57,000, which was incorporated into 
FRA's fiscal year 1999 rent request. No closings are planned for fiscal 
year 1999. It should be noted that while the rent line item decreased 
due to these changes, other costs increased. Office closings and 
telecommuting require additional funds in communications, information 
technology, space management, and other support costs, especially in 
the year of the transactions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Fiscal year                           Offices closed             Offices with reductions in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.....................................  Bangor, ME                          Oklahoma City, OK.
                                           Memphis, TN                         Salt Lake City, UT.
                                           Knoxville, TN
                                           Tampa, FL
                                           Shreveport, LA
                                           San Antonio, TX
                                           Spokane, WA
1997.....................................  Peoria, IL                          Birmingham, AL.
                                           Wichita, KS                         Nashville, TN.
                                           Roanoke, VA                         Mobile, AL.
                                           Seattle, WA
                                           Louisville, KY
1998.....................................  Columbus, OH                        Houston, TX.\1\
                                           Harrisburg, PA \1\                  Jacksonville, FL.\1\
                                           Charleston, WV \1\                  Charlotte, NC.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned closings/space reductions.

                             telecommuting
    Question. How many Office of Safety employees have elected to 
telecommute since the National Partnership Council implemented Phase I 
of the telecommuting process in September 1995 (please break out by 
fiscal year 1997 and 1998)? When will this process be complete?
    Answer. FRA is currently implementing the final phase of its 
telecommuting project, which has been extended to allow eligible 
employees in all regions the opportunity to work at home or 
telecommute. There are currently 161 full-time telecommuters working 
out of their homes. It is anticipated that could increase by 
approximately 20 employees for a total of 181 telecommuters. On 
September, 1997, there were 135 full-time telecommuters.
             balance of pc&b funds in fiscal years 1996-97
    Question. What was the remaining amount of PC&B in fiscal year 1996 
and fiscal year 1997 that was not used for this purpose? To which areas 
were these funds reallocated?
    Answer. Funds were not appropriated at the PC&B level, therefore, 
there were no ``remaining'' PC&B funds. An object class table for the 
Safety appropriation was included in the budget request and reflected 
an ESTIMATE on how funds would be spent based on funding decisions at 
the time the budget was developed. Congressional actions, emergencies 
such as the UP and CSX accidents, absorption of unfunded costs, and 
other policy actions change these decisions and FRA acts accordingly.
    FRA works very hard to develop sound estimates at the object class 
level. However, FRA, within the parameters of the appropriation and 
approved reprogramming guidelines, reallocates resources at the object 
class level to fund high priority needs. This is good budgeting and 
ensures that funds are not only spent in line with Congressional 
intent, but are leveraged to maximize safety.
                        inspection data 1995-97
    Question. How many miles of track, freight cars, locomotives, and 
track miles with signal and train control systems were inspected last 
year? Please compare this level of inspection activity with that 
achieved during the two preceding years. How were these activities 
focused on high-risk railroads and shippers?
    Answer.

                                                 INSPECTION DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1995            1996          1997 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track:
    Number of inspections.......................................          12,668          11,539          11,193
    Miles inspected.............................................         272,476         260,543         246,748
    Records inspected...........................................         132,420         132,992         108,751
    Defects recorded............................................          69,817          65,788          62,697
Signal:
    Number of inspections.......................................           5,391           5,383           5,045
    Units inspected.............................................          55,414          51,801          45,184
    Records inspected...........................................          66,823          84,057          72,134
    Defects recorded............................................          22,169          19,261          26,440
Motive Power and Equipment:
    Number of inspections.......................................          15,579          14,838          13,534
    Locomotives inspected.......................................          29,916          24,345          21,927
    Cars inspected..............................................         700,838         624,069         547,654
    Defects recorded............................................         123,078         108,076          99,782
Operating Practices:
    Number of inspections.......................................          13,501          12,936          12,755
    Complaints received.........................................           1,519           1,383           1,522
    Defects recorded............................................          35,880          16,975          33,228
Hazardous Materials:
    Number of inspections.......................................          10,461          10,483           9,633
    Tank cars inspected.........................................          77,992          76,718          70,547
    Defects recorded............................................          21,649          18,139          16,216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.

    FRA's inspection activities are data-driven. FRA's databases show a 
railroad's historical accident profile, prior inspection activities, 
the amount of tonnage hauled by the railroad and over what routes, the 
number of highway-rail grade crossings, whether hazardous materials are 
transported, and the amount of interaction between freight and 
passenger traffic. Inspection activities are usually focused on 
railroads and shippers that pose the highest risk in terms of these 
factors.
                 effectiveness of civil penalty program
    Question. What is the relationship, if any, between FRA's civil 
penalty enforcement program and industry's compliance with the safety 
regulations and crash reduction? How do you measure this relationship?
    Answer. Each of FRA's substantive safety regulations is designed to 
reduce the likelihood of accidents, injuries and other undesirable 
consequences related to the subject of the rule. For example, FRA's 
rule on control of alcohol and drug abuse is designed to reduce the 
incidence of impairment on the part of safety-sensitive employees. 
Since its issuance in 1985, the percentage of employees testing 
positive for alcohol or drugs has declined enormously. Serious 
accidents caused by impaired employees have declined accordingly. These 
improvements are presumably largely the product of compliance with the 
rules. The same analysis can be made of nearly all of FRA's substantive 
rules. Their implementation leads to an improvement in the relevant 
safety category.
    An important part of that implementation is enforcement. It is not 
currently possible to trace specific penalty actions (of which FRA 
completed 1,500 to 2,000 per year) to specific reductions in accident 
rates. However, FRA's experience teaches that, if compliance were 
voluntary, compliance levels would be significantly lower. Were the 
civil penalty process not available to help induce improved compliance, 
the number of violations would no doubt increase and lead to accidents 
or injuries in some percentage of the cases.
    FRA's daily experience with the civil penalty process demonstrates 
that it affects safety behavior very positively. FRA and state 
inspectors generally recommend the assessment of civil penalties when 
that step seems necessary to help encourage compliance. Inspectors 
ordinarily use the civil penalty tool as a way of signaling displeasure 
with the current level of compliance on the part of a particular 
railroad, shipper, or individual. Sometimes, the civil penalty is 
recommended even for a somewhat isolated violation because of its 
severity. In cases involving defective track, signals, or equipment, a 
railroad that has been reluctant to cooperate generally remedies the 
defects shortly after receiving the initial notice from the inspector 
of his or her intention to recommend a penalty. In fact, FRA's rules 
require that a report of remedial action be submitted to FRA in such 
cases. Where violations involve a completed action that cannot 
specifically be remedied (such as an hours of service violation), 
remedial action reports are not required. However, railroads and 
shippers investigate all violations and, at the time the initial civil 
penalty assessment is discussed in a settlement conference, they nearly 
always indicate that violations have been corrected and/or remedial 
actions have been taken to reduce the chance of a recurrence. 
Accordingly, civil penalty assessments generally result in correction 
of the immediate defects and/or measures to avoid repeated violations 
of the same nature.
    FRA is making a concerted effort to concentrate its limited 
enforcement resources on the types of violations most likely to cause 
accidents and injuries. This ``focused enforcement'' approach, as it 
becomes fully implemented, promises to focus railroad corrective action 
where it is most needed to avoid accidents and injuries.
                    holding of penalties during sacp
    Question. How is the process of holding penalties in abeyance 
affecting the effort to promote safety and regulatory compliance?
    Answer. The reduction in train accidents, train accident rates, 
rail-related fatalities, and employee-on-duty casualties over the last 
five years is convincing evidence that FRA's Safety Assurance and 
Compliance Program (SACP) is achieving desired safety results. Between 
1993 and 1997, train accidents decreased 10 percent, train accident 
rates decreased 18 percent, rail-related fatalities decreased 18 
percent and employee-on-duty casualties decreased 46 percent.
    SACP is an outgrowth of President Clinton's directive to Federal 
regulatory agencies that their inspection and enforcement programs be 
designed to focus on safety results and regulatory compliance, not just 
collect fines. FRA suspends the assessment of most civil penalties 
concerning matters covered by a SACP safety audit. Through the 
collaborative efforts of rail management, rail labor, and FRA, the 
railroad submits a Safety Action Plan to FRA. The Safety Action Plan 
describes intended actions to correct systemic safety defects, or areas 
of non-compliance with agency regulations. Except in egregious cases, 
civil penalties are held in abeyance as long as the railroad is 
carrying-out system-wide improvements/corrections, as specified in the 
Safety Action Plan.
               consideration of ability to pay a penalty
    Question. In assessing penalties, how does FRA adequately consider 
the ability of a railroad to pay a penalty and the impact on the 
railroad's financial stability after paying a financial penalty?
    Answer. The railroad safety statutes require that, in determining 
the amount that the agency might accept in compromise in a civil 
penalty case, FRA consider ``the ability to pay, and any effect on the 
ability to continue in business.'' The penalties are currently subject 
to a maximum of $22,000 per violation per day, but the assessment for a 
single violation is ordinarily far less than the maximum, which is 
reserved for the most serious violations that have caused an imminent 
hazard of serious injury or death. Civil penalty negotiations with 
major railroads usually involve many different violations, and the 
total aggregate assessment can be in the hundreds of thousands, and 
sometimes millions, of dollars. Negotiations with small railroads 
usually entail only one or a few violations. The largest fines are 
generally assessed against the largest railroads, and the smallest 
railroads are not frequently fined, and are hardly ever fined large 
amounts.
    FRA invites all railroads to address all of the statutory 
compromise considerations in negotiations. However, railroads hardly 
ever argue that they lack the ability to pay a particular fine or that 
it will affect their ability to continue in business. When they do, FRA 
asks for supporting information on the railroad's financial condition, 
and assesses whether that information establishes a real inability to 
pay or possible effect on continued business. FRA construes the 
statutory criteria quite literally, and looks for information 
demonstrating an actual inability to pay and/or effect on the 
continuation of the business. On the extremely rare occasions where 
such information is submitted and supports the claims made by the 
railroad, FRA makes sufficient allowances (e.g., reducing the penalty 
further and/or permitting installment payments). It should be noted 
that FRA's policy is to take into account the special circumstances of 
small businesses in deciding whether to take enforcement action in the 
first place, and FRA makes a special effort to ensure that such 
enforcement actions are focused on the most important safety issues.
                    current level of civil penalties
    Question. Does the current level of civil penalties send the 
appropriate message to industry that FRA will ``get tough'' when 
necessary?
    Answer. So far in this decade (through fiscal year 1997), FRA has 
collected $72 million in civil penalties. In fiscal year 1997, the 
figure was $3.8 million. FRA thinks these numbers send the message that 
FRA will use its civil penalty authority when necessary. However, more 
important than aggregate penalty levels is the need to impress on those 
who commit the most serious violations that such behavior will have a 
cost. This is what FRA is attempting to do through ``focused 
enforcement.''
                      processing enforcement cases
    Question. How could FRA's enforcement case backlog be more 
efficiently processed? How could industry be more effectively informed 
of pending cases? What is the current backlog and how does it compare 
with the backlog for each of the last three years?
    Answer. FRA has an efficient system for processing enforcement 
cases. In 1997, the Office of Chief Counsel initiated enforcement 
cases, on average, within 60 days of having received the violation 
report from the region. (Some years ago, when the safety legal staff 
was smaller and FRA had not computerized its document preparation for 
these cases, it was taking nearly two years to transmit them.) The 
promptness of the current process ensures that the industry is 
effectively informed of pending violations on a timely basis. (Of 
course, a railroad also receives notice roughly contemporaneously with 
an inspection that the inspector intends to recommend a civil penalty 
because the inspector checks a box on the inspection report given to 
the railroad to show that civil penalty will be recommended.) With 
regard to major railroads, the process has also become very efficient 
in bringing these cases to resolution. FRA holds a settlement 
conference to close all pending cases on at least an annual basis with 
the largest railroads.
    The major area of difficulty now is finding sufficient time to 
settle cases against small railroads and shippers. Each case requires 
separate attention and the settlements, which are often handled through 
mail and phone calls rather than meetings, lack the economies of scale 
present in the large railroad settlements. FRA attorneys can pursue 
these settlements only as the press of other priorities (e.g., large 
railroad settlements, regulatory projects, engineer certification 
cases) permits. At any given time, FRA always has a number of open 
cases awaiting settlement. The figures below show the number of such 
cases pending now and the total initial penalty demand on those cases, 
with similar figures as of March during each of the last three years. 
The number of cases and amount of the total penalty demand have 
declined substantially since March 1995. FRA does not consider these 
total amounts to be ``backlogs'' because only a portion of them 
involves cases older than a year. Generally, those older cases are the 
small railroad and shipper cases for which it is so difficult to find 
sufficient time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of
                Time period                   open cases  Penalty amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March:
    1995...................................        2,710     $20,515,500
    1996...................................        2,552      19,420,800
    1997...................................        1,796      12,543,950
    1998...................................        1,506      11,304,050
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                sacp audits of class i and ii railroads
    Question. Under the SACP, how many Class I and Class II railroads 
have been analyzed by FRA so far? How often are you able to return to 
these railroads? How many additional railroads need to be reviewed?
    Answer. FRA has examined more than 55 railroads under SACP 
including all ten Class I railroads, more than half of the approximate 
27 Class II railroads, seven of the nine commuter rail authorities, and 
many of the largest switching and terminal railroads (according to 
Surface Transportation Board railroad revenue classifications, all 
switching and terminal railroads are Class III, regardless of revenue 
levels). SACP audits are considered an ongoing process--once a SACP 
audit begins at a railroad, it will be continuously monitored by FRA 
inspectors through employee listening post sessions and formal FRA/
Management/Labor meetings. FRA cannot extend SACP audits to the more 
than 700 U.S. railroads. However, the agency intends to place under 
SACP review the largest freight, all passenger, and all other freight 
railroads having significant amounts of hazardous material shipments, 
or interface with passenger service.
                     determination for sacp audits
    Question. Please describe how FRA determines which railroads are 
included in the SACP process.
    Answer. SACP safety audits are the most efficient method of 
examining the largest railroads, which operate in multiple States and 
across several of FRA's regional field offices. All Class I freight and 
passenger railroads are undergoing the open-ended SACP safety audits. 
In addition, most commuter rail authorities and the largest Class II 
freight and Class III Switching and Terminal Railroads are undergoing 
SACP safety audits. To confirm the accuracy of the selection process 
and to assess other candidates to under go SACP safety audits, FRA uses 
an Annual Allocation Analysis Model (AAAM). The AAAM focuses on high 
risk rail movements. The model data is arranged by inspection 
discipline, region, and railroad. Railroads are divided into three 
class size groupings: large railroads with annual employee hours 
greater than 400,000, small railroads with total train miles times 
annual employee hours greater than 100 million, and small railroads 
with total train miles times annual employee hours less than 100 
million.
    For large railroads, AAAM uses seven risk factors: inspection 
reports, accidents, fatalities and serious injuries, hazardous material 
tons, total tons, passenger traffic, and inspection defects. AAAM also 
uses seven risk factors for both categories of small railroads. 
Hazardous material tons and total tons are obtained from the Surface 
Transportation Board's Carload Waybill Sample. However, the Carload 
Waybill Sample of railroad freight traffic does not accurately track 
hazardous material traffic flows on small railroads. Consequently, 
``train miles'' and ``annual employee hours'' are substituted for 
``hazardous material tons,'' and ``total tons.'' AAAM is a model of 
reasonable risk factors, which can suggest the need for site specific 
examinations, or suggest an area for examination under Safety Assurance 
and Compliance Program (SACP) safety audits.
                  assessment and funding needs of sacp
    Question. Please provide an overall assessment of the SACP process, 
indicating remaining challenges, improvements needed, and constraints. 
How does your fiscal year 1999 budget address these remaining 
challenges?
    Answer. SACP identifies and addresses systemic problems that have 
railroad-wide or railroad-industry-wide implications. Often, these 
issues cut across inspection territories and disciplinary lines. For 
example, the recent Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union 
Pacific (UP)/Southern Pacific (SP) mergers and the proposed acquisition 
of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) by Norfolk Southern and CSX 
Transportation (CSXT) all pose issues of how safety is affected by such 
things as the blending of different corporate cultures and 
reconciliation of different operating rules and practices.
    FRA's safety programs require a balanced approach of inspections 
coupled with partnerships, which enlist the cooperation of rail labor 
and management to identify and correct safety concerns in the railroad 
industry. Site-specific inspections remain as a vital component of 
FRA's rail safety program; however, site inspections are not always 
beneficial in identifying systemic problems nor ensuring railroad 
cooperation and participation in correcting safety violations.
    One of the most significant challenges facing the SACP is building 
effective labor/management safety partnerships at the local level. Both 
labor and management have sought out FRA to help establish safety 
committees between rank-and-file railroad workers and first line 
supervisors and managers. The eight Principle Inspectors and 16 Safety 
Inspectors will play a significant role in addressing this critical 
SACP need.
    While FRA is leveraging its resources through SACP and site-
specific inspection duties, there is still a significant amount of work 
that is not being addressed. Grade crossing, bridge inspection, 
regulatory analysis, and state liaison are just some of the areas that 
are vulnerable due to limited resources. The 32 positions requested by 
FRA are intended to help address these safety issues as well.
                            success of sacp
    Question. Is your cooperative strategy working? How do you document 
this? Please provide several examples of how this cooperative approach 
has been effective, and outline how the compliance levels have improved 
with this approach versus FRA's more traditional enforcement approach.
    Answer. The singular goal of the Safety Assurance and Compliance 
Program (SACP) and FRA's existing site-based inspection and enforcement 
program is to improve rail safety by reducing systemic hazards in rail 
facilities, equipment, rolling stock and operations. The following 
statistics document that since 1993, FRA's cooperative strategy 
approach is working:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Percent
               Performance measures                  1993      1994      1995      1996     Prelim   change 1993-
                                                                                             1997         97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail-Related Fatalities..........................     1,279     1,226     1,146     1,039     1,048        -18.1
Employee-On-Duty Casualties......................    15,410    13,111    10,811     9,232     8,239        -46.5
Train Accident Rate..............................      4.54      4.07      3.91      3.85      3.47        -23.6
Grade Crossing Collision Rate....................      3.47      3.22      2.85      2.56      2.22        -36.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SACP initiatives complement FRA's existing enforcement program. 
Team and individual inspector-based inspections still comprise about 70 
percent of FRA's safety program. The traditional approach to safety 
allows FRA to enter and examine rail facilities, equipment, rolling 
stock, operations and pertinent records to ensure compliance with 
railroad safety regulation. Civil penalties, which FRA can assess 
against any entity (including individuals) that violates safety laws, 
continue to serve as strong tools to ensure the railroad industry 
adheres to rail safety regulations. However, FRA is making a greater 
effort than ever on focusing enforcement actions on the most serious 
violations and safety concerns. Examples of the effectiveness of SACP 
safety audits follow:
    The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) has worked with FRA and its 
labor organizations to pioneer SACP techniques. In January 1997, a 
joint labor/management/FRA SACP Task Force was formed to: (1) identify 
and recommend solutions to cultural issues which affect safety; (2) 
identify and recommend solutions to systemic safety issues; and (3) 
open lines of communication between labor organizations and senior 
railroad management. SACP initiatives which began January 1, 1997 on 
the BNSF have resulted in an improved Grade Crossing Safety Program, a 
System-Wide Signal Software Upgrade, greater Employee Safety 
Empowerment, an Improved Discipline Policy, increased Fatigue 
Countermeasures, and Improved Accident/Incident Reporting throughout 
the entire BNSF system. The following are select highlights of the 
results to date:
    Grade Crossing Safety Program.--BNSF, in conjunction with FRA, 
developed a 10-year comprehensive ``Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing and 
Trespasser Prevention Program.'' The program focuses on crossing 
closure, public education and enhanced law enforcement.
    System-Wide Signal Software Upgrade.--Concerns regarding faulty 
signals in Montana (identified by labor and pursued by FRA) resulted in 
the correction of software at the BNSF Operations Center. This 
prevented a potentially serious signal failure in over 400 signals. A 
follow-up analysis by BNSF revealed a manufacturing signal system 
defect, which has been corrected by the manufacturer on a nation-wide 
basis for all railroads. This is the magnitude of increased safety that 
SACP can provide.
    Employee Safety Empowerment.--A comprehensive ``Employee 
Empowerment Safety Policy'' and a ``Fear and Intimidation'' complaint 
resolution process, both authored by the SACP Task Force, were 
implemented system-wide in 1997. Combined, these programs allow 
employees to challenge and resolve work place safety issues while 
maintaining ``whistle blower'' type protections. Since harassment and 
intimidation are chronic employee complaints and difficult to eliminate 
by regulation, this SACP achievement is extraordinarily important.
    Improved Discipline Policy.--Working with the SACP Task Force, BNSF 
established a new employee discipline policy. The railroad now focuses 
on individual behavior modification using coaching, counselling, and 
training, rather than punishment for safety-related and other types of 
infractions. In addition, all cases of significant discipline, i.e., 
suspensions and dismissals, are reviewed by senior management. This 
approach emphasizes to management and employees that rules compliance 
is about preventing injuries and property damage, not just finding 
fault afterwards.
    Fatigue Countermeasures Program.--Working with the SACP Task Force, 
BNSF has developed the most advanced ``Fatigue Countermeasures 
Program'' in the industry. The carrier has instituted a ``strategic 
napping policy,'' a ``10-hour rest period,'' and pilot programs for 
``assigned days off'' and ``calling windows.'' As these approaches 
succeed, employees will be empowered to take responsibility for their 
own fitness and have better tools to meet their safety 
responsibilities.
    Improved Accident/Injury Reporting.--A comprehensive ``Accident/
Injury Reporting'' audit conducted by FRA during the SACP process 
resulted in a defect reporting rate error on BNSF of less than 1 
percent. This verified defect ratio reflects the sharp focus that the 
railroad has placed on improvement of reporting practices and is a true 
achievement. A quarterly review process has been established to monitor 
continued compliance with reporting requirements.
    Highlights of the enhanced SACP initiative, which began on the 
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) in late August 1997, have thus far 
resulted in an improved Supervisor Program, increased staffing, 
increased fatigue countermeasures, a revised and refined dispatching 
program, and the development of an electronic system enabling the UP to 
comply with Federal record keeping requirements involving about 20,000 
train and engine employees. Following two years during which the Union 
Pacific consummated large mergers, 1997 became the year in which 
America's largest railroad discovered its own limitations.
    From a safety standpoint, the UP had become less than the sum of 
its parts. As some Union Pacific managers admit, with the benefit of 
hindsight, they did not make the preparations necessary to integrate 
the system and maintain adequate traffic flows. Changes that were 
instituted were often too rapid or involved cuts that went too deep. 
This resulted in a variety of ills, including heavy stresses on 
employees and physical assets, distraction and dislocation of first-
line managers, and more changes in the way the business was run than 
could be accommodated in that supercharged environment.
    In response to FRA's SACP review, six ``working groups,'' 
consisting of representatives from FRA and from UP labor and 
management, began working to identify the causes of, and solutions to, 
systemic safety problems. The six working groups are: (1) Crew 
Management System, (2) Train Dispatching, (3) Fatigue, (4) Training, 
(5) Culture, and (6) Inspections and Testing. The following are select 
highlights of the results to date:
    Supervision.--A SACP Working Group found that supervisors' 
workloads prevented them from effectively monitoring and evaluating 
their employees' performance, particularly in train and engine service. 
UP hired 134 supervisory personnel and identified additional 
supervisory positions to be filled.
    Staffing.--An analysis of staffing levels by a SACP Working Group 
provided evidence that the number of employees is not adequate to 
handle current and projected levels of traffic. As a result, the UP 
began hiring 1,000 employees to correct this issue.
    Fatigue.--A SACP Working Group is studying and recommending 
solutions to fatigue-related issues. These include: napping, lodging, 
uninterrupted rest periods, education, improved crew utilization and 
scheduling. Staffing and contract preparations have been made, and 
employee education and awareness efforts begin this coming month. UP is 
also engaged in a hiring program to augment staffing in key crafts.
    Dispatching Facilities.--A SACP Working Group has developed an 
Action Plan to improve dispatching operations, and implementation and 
refining of the plan is in progress. A revised dispatcher training 
program is in place, and the first class has completed the training. 
Workload and territory adjustments have been made on twelve dispatching 
desks at Omaha, and further realignments are planned.
    Hours of Duty Record Keeping.--A SACP Working Group is monitoring 
the development of an electronic system to enable the UP to comply with 
Federal record keeping requirements (49 CFR Part 228) involving about 
20,000 train and engine employees. The new system is designed to 
replace the manual system currently in use, which is of little help in 
planning for compliance with the requirements of the hours of services 
laws. Implementation of the program will be subject to FRA's approval 
and resolution of any additional labor concerns.
    CSX Transportation (CSXT) has achieved significant improvements in 
train accidents and employee casualty rates over the past few years. 
However, following a series of five high-profile accidents in 1997, FRA 
conducted a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary SACP field inspection of 
the CSXT system. As a result of the SACP process, CSXT established 
joint labor/management/FRA ``Functional Oversight Teams'' to address 
safety issues for each railroad discipline. The Functional Oversight 
Teams report findings and recommendations to a joint labor/management/
FRA ``Executive Committee,'' which takes final corrective action.
    The FRA is closely examining the BNSF, UP/SP, CSXT, and Conrail to 
assure that safety is maintained and to look for opportunities to 
improve it. Similarly, current trends indicate continuing consolidation 
of steadily increasing amounts to railroad traffic, including 
transportation of hazardous materials and passengers, on a network of 
high-density lines. These kinds of developments call for new approaches 
and continuing innovation. The following are select highlights of the 
results to date:
    Discipline policy.--Working with the SACP Task Force, CSXT is 
reviewing its discipline policy with a view toward a more remedial and 
less punitive approach.
    Locomotive Engineer Mentor Program.--The Brotherhood of Locomotive 
Engineers (BLE) and CSXT have joined forces to develop a mentor program 
(SENSE Program). Experienced locomotive engineers become mentors for 
new and inexperienced train service employees to inculcate safe work 
habits. Lack of experience in handling heavy trains and unusual 
situations is a prominent factor in many derailments and collisions.
    Signal and Train Control Improvement Program.--Working with the 
SACP Task Force, CSXT will hire an additional 250 signal employees 
during 1998 and spend $66 million to improve signal system maintenance. 
Included are plans to eliminate outdated pole lines, a major SACP 
safety concern, and defects to numerous Grade Crossing Warning Devices 
identified in the FRA safety audit report (e.g., lamp voltage, 
visibility of flashing lights, upgrades in battery supply and cable 
size).
    1-800 Crossing Hazard Call-In-Program.--As part of an agreement 
with FRA, CSXT is installing emergency information signs at all public 
highway-rail grade crossings. The signs list a toll-free telephone and 
highway-rail grade crossing identification numbers, where motorists may 
report stalled vehicles and malfunctioning warning devices.
                  impact of sacp--fiscal years 1995-97
    Question. Please prepare quantitative measures showing the impact 
of SACP on railroad safety, using numerous measures of safety 
performance for each of the last three years.
    Answer.

                                        CASUALTIES IN ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Total
                              Year                                  Fatalities       Injuries       casualties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................           1,146          14,440          15,586
1996............................................................           1,039          12,558          13,597
1997 \1\........................................................           1,054          11,647          12,701
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Hwy-rail      Total
                      Year                          Train        Train       Nontrain       Xing      accidents/
                                                  accidents    incidents    incidents     impacts     incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995...........................................        2,459        2,267       10,236        4,663       19,625
1996...........................................        2,443        2,156        8,836        4,257       17,692
1997 \1\.......................................        2,338        1,982        8,082        3,926       16,328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                            ACCIDENTS/PROPERTY DAMAGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Total train     Accidents/
                              Year                                     Train         accident     million train-
                                                                     accidents        damage           miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................           2,459    $189,224,000            3.67
1996............................................................           2,443     212,314,000            3.64
1997 \1\........................................................           2,338     265,504,000            3.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             HIGHWAY-RAIL CASUALTIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Total
                              Year                                    Deaths         Injuries       casualties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................             579           1,894           2,473
1996............................................................             488           1,610           2,098
1997 \1\........................................................             452           1,575           2,027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    HIGHWAY-RAIL ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Accidents/
                  Year                      Accidents/    million train-
                                             incidents         miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995....................................           4,663            6.96
1996....................................           4,257            6.34
1997 \1\................................           3,926            5.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  CASUALTY RATES FOR EMPLOYEES ON DUTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Casualties/
                  Year                         Total       200,000 work-
                                            casualties      hours rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995....................................          10,811            4.24
1996....................................           9,232            3.66
1997 \1\................................           8,330            3.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     TOTAL TRESPASSER CASUALTIES (EXCLUDING HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Total
               Year                   Deaths      Injuries    casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.............................          494          461          955
1996.............................          471          474          945
1997 \1\.........................          530          501        1,031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.

                  up/sp accidents and the sacp process
    Question. The National Transportation Safety Board cited 15 
accidents on Union Pacific/Southern Pacific property between October 
1996 and October 1997, with which a total of 37 injuries and 7 deaths 
were associated. How, if at all, do these statistics reflect on FRA's 
SACP process?
    Answer. One of FRA's earliest SACP safety audits occurred on the 
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) in 1995. The UP of 1995 was a much 
smaller system then; neither the Chicago and North Western 
Transportation Company nor the Southern Pacific Transportation Company 
were yet a part of that system.
    FRA identified issues of regulatory compliance that were 
essentially regional in character and its inspection program proved 
successful at the time. For example, train accident rates were on the 
decline and the UP followed the trend that characterized the rail 
industry in general: traffic was rising, the size of the work force and 
amount of infrastructure was declining, and safety was showing steady 
improvement. Between 1995 and 1997, inclusive, the train accident rate 
on the combined UP system dropped from 3.88 to 3.36 (10 months data) 
while the total number of train accidents fell from 694 to 476 (10 
months data). The trend held true for every major accident cause factor 
over this period: human factor-caused accidents declined 39 percent; 
track-caused accidents fell 24 percent.
    Even in Texas, where four major train collisions occurred in 1997, 
the overall number of train accidents on the combined UP system fell by 
25 percent (10 months data) and the number of human factor accidents 
fell by 13 percent in 1997. Safety progress was evident until an eight-
week period beginning June 22, 1997, when five major train collisions 
caused the deaths of five employees and two trespassers. These tragic 
collisions of mid-summer marked a sharp reversal of the positive safety 
trends that the UP had experienced.
    Commencing August 23, 1997, FRA sent the largest single force of 
inspectors ever used on a single property to the UP. Twenty-five 
percent of FRA's inspection force was used to find a solution to stop 
the deadly series of collisions. More than 85 Federal and State safety 
inspectors conduced a two-week, 24-hour-a-day team inspection across 
the UP system. This ``sweep'' was followed-up by a five-day, system-
wide team inspection involving 87 inspectors starting on November 3, 
1997. Based on the information developed through FRA's accident 
investigations and intensified SACP activities, the agency issued a 
series of Safety Advisories to immediately address several safety 
critical topics. These include: 97-1, Recommended safety practices for 
certain locomotives equipped with emergency MU fuel line cut off; 97-2, 
Safety practices to reduce the risk of casualties from runaway 
locomotives, cars, and trains caused by a failure to properly secure 
unattended rolling equipment left on sidings; and 97-3, Safety 
Practices to reduce the risk of accidents arising from the 
authorization of train movements past stop indications of absolute 
signals.
    Furthermore, beginning in September, joint labor/management/FRA 
safety committees were formed to address the issues being identified by 
FRA through the SACP process. As FRA crystallized its findings and 
recommendations, the agency remained in close contact with labor and 
management representatives who were actively seeking solutions to the 
identified problems. Four interrelated problems seemed to stand out and 
permeate many areas of safety on the UP: (1) Under staffing; (2) 
Fatigue; (3) Insufficient levels of supervision; and (4) Dispatching 
deficiencies. FRA would not have been able to reach these findings if 
it had limited its activities to site specific inspections.
    On February 24, 1998, FRA conducted a Senior Management Meeting 
with senior representatives from the UP, rail labor, and FRA. Discussed 
were the root causes of the safety problems that led to the collisions 
and derailments of the previous six months. The UP formally presented 
its Safety Action Plan, developed with the input of rail labor and 
FRA's guidance, detailing both long-term and interim measures to 
prevent the recurrence of these problems. The results of UP's actions 
are significant. Under the plan, staffing levels are being increased at 
a rate three to four times greater than in previous years. The UP 
projects hiring more than 4,300 railroad workers this year, at least 
1,200 of which are train and engine service personnel. Even more 
significant, the UP has formed a team to evaluate staffing needs and 
assumptions through the year 2015, and it has invited labor 
representatives to review its staffing plans as a sort of ``reality 
check.'' To address the critical shortage of safety supervisors, the UP 
has hired, or is in the process of hiring, approximately 134 
supervisors.
    In addition, the UP has hired a leading fatigue management expert, 
Dr. Mark Rosekind, who was formerly a fatigue consultant to the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. With this expert 
guidance, the UP plans to develop and implement a comprehensive fatigue 
management program addressing a broad spectrum of fatigue mitigation 
measures, including work rest cycles that permit time off, ``call-in'' 
windows, a napping policy, improved work assignment predictability, 
improved rest facilities, and reduced ``dead head'' time.
    The SACP safety audit of the UP is a good example of why site-
specific inspections of large railroad systems are not sufficient and 
why SACP system reviews are needed. The SACP examination of the UP has 
provided FRA the opportunity to address issues unprecedented in this 
industry. FRA is aware that Safety Action Plans, in and of themselves, 
cannot make the UP safer. The Plans must be fully implemented in a 
timely manner before FRA can expect to bring about the cultural change 
that the railroad requires. FRA is fully committed to ensuring that a 
sufficient follow-up is conducted of the UP Safety Action Plan to 
monitor the Plan's implementation and effectiveness.
                            warning letters
    Question. Since last year, how have you strengthened the systematic 
reinspection procedure of monitoring or revisiting either rail 
management or labor employees who received warning letters from the 
FRA? How many enforcement actions against individuals who received FRA 
warning letters has the agency taken during each of the last three 
years? What types of actions were taken?
    Answer. FRA does not single out individuals who have received 
warning letters for special attention in monitoring or reinspection 
activities. The warning letter itself is a method of enforcement. It is 
used only where FRA believes that the letter itself will have the 
desired effect in bringing a situation into compliance with the 
applicable safety regulations. Of course, if FRA finds a continuing 
pattern of non-compliance by a warning letter recipient, other more 
severe enforcement actions will be taken as necessary, but this has 
seldom occurred.
    During the past three years, FRA issued warning letters to 
individuals as follows: 1995 (17), 1996 (23), and 1997 (17). In that 
time, FRA has not found it necessary to take any additional enforcement 
actions against the recipients of warning letters.
                safety assurance and compliance program
    Question. Please provide a list of railroads that have successfully 
completed safety actions plans, and those railroads that have open or 
unresolved actions plans.
    Answer. Railroads that have successfully completed safety action 
plans and those that are still open follow:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Open or
                                                 Completed    unresolved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Chicago Northwestern......................            X  ...........
 2. Southern Pacific..........................            X  ...........
 3. Iowa Interstate...........................            X  ...........
 4. Conrail...................................  ...........            X
 5. Kansas City Southern......................            X  ...........
 6. Union Pacific.............................            X  ...........
 7. Tri-County Commuter Rail..................            X  ...........
 8. Montana Rail Link.........................            X  ...........
 9. CSXT......................................            X  ...........
10. Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern.............            X  ...........
11. SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania).........  ...........            X
12. Long Island...............................  ...........            X
13. Springfield Terminal......................  ...........            X
14. Beltway Railway of Chicago................  ...........            X
15. Norfolk Southern..........................            X  ...........
16. RailTex...................................            X  ...........
17. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern...................            X  ...........
18. Amtrak....................................  ...........            X
19. Canadian Pacific (Soo Line)...............  ...........            X
20. New Orleans Public Belt...................  ...........            X
21. New York and Lake Erie....................  ...........            X
21. Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range............  ...........            X
22. Arizona & California......................  ...........            X
23. Illinois Central..........................  ...........            X
24. Wheeling & Lake Erie......................  ...........            X
25. Reading Blue Mountain & Northern..........  ...........            X
26. Gateway Western...........................            X  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution of some issues often requires a long-term commitment 
of funding, staffing, and operational considerations. An ``open or 
unresolved'' designation indicates that one or more action issues have 
not been fully implemented. For example, Amtrak Action Item OP No. 2, 
cites the need to improve record keeping and evaluation documentation 
procedures in support of locomotive engineer certification and 
operational testing programs. While Amtrak has funded a capital 
appropriation request of $250,000 for the development of an Integrated 
Regulatory Information System for fiscal year 1998 to satisfy the 
documentation requirement, this Action Item is still ``open'' until 
satisfactory results are achieved. ``Unresolved issues'' pertain to 
FRA's acceptance of a carrier's Safety Action Plan in response to our 
findings and recommendations. A carrier is granted a reasonable period 
of time to prepare its response--approximately 45 days. Since the 
inception of the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP), there 
have been no instances where a carrier and FRA have not been able to 
agree to a satisfactory solution to a systemic safety issue. However, 
until an agreement is reached, this Action Item will be designated 
``unresolved.''
    SACP is evolving into a continuous ongoing process. FRA is now 
maintaining a continued presence on a carrier's property after 
``completing'' the initial SACP safety audit. FRA is presently in open-
ended partnerships with the UP, CSXT, Norfolk Southern, and others to 
address and resolve safety concerns.
    In addition to the carriers listed above, other railroads have 
received SACP safety audits. However, a determination was made that 
either systemic problems did not exist, or that resolutions could be 
achieved without the requirement of a Safety Action Plan. In general, 
these carriers have a narrow scope of operations (i.e., switching and 
terminal), and employ a small work force.
                    failure to implement action plan
    Question. Please share with the Committee all instances where FRA 
has determined that a railroad with an agreed-upon action plan has not 
made a good-faith effort to execute the action plan. In each of these 
instances, did FRA process civil penalties that would have been held in 
abeyance had the railroad been making a good-faith effort to implement 
the plan?
    Answer. Two examples of railroad failures to carry-out agreed-upon 
actions, which occurred early in FRA's Safety Assurance and Compliance 
Program, follow: Tonawanda Island Railroad. In response to concerns 
raised by the New York State Department of Transportation, FRA 
inspected and found an unsafe bridge on the Tonawanda Island Railroad 
system. The railroad agreed not to operate over the bridge until it was 
properly repaired and inspected by FRA. When the railroad resumed 
operations over the bridge without making repairs, FRA issued Emergency 
Order (EO) 19 on February 12, 1996. Until rescinded, EO 19 directs the 
railroad to discontinue operations over the bridge.
    Southern Pacific Transportation Company. During a listening session 
with the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen at West Colton, California, FRA 
attention was directed to a Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) practice of 
allowing defective freight cars to be released from the yard at West 
Colton. A team of FRA motive power and equipment personnel was 
assembled and made inspections. Numerous defective cars were observed 
being permitted to leave the yard. SP was requested to submit a Safety 
Action Plan (SAP). FRA performed follow-up inspections after the action 
plan had been implemented and found that the problem had not been 
corrected. FRA is now pursuing vigorous enforcement actions, including 
violations, against the SP and SP personnel who allowed these practices 
to continue.
    FRA has not encountered any current circumstances where railroads 
have failed to make a good-faith effort to carry-out SAP's. There have 
been circumstances where SAP's were not implemented in exact accordance 
with agreed-upon terms, e.g., milestones and target dates. However, 
these circumstances were related to operational considerations, 
staffing limitations, financial restraints, severe weather conditions, 
and other factors. When the SAP execution is altered, FRA closely 
monitors the railroad's progress until satisfactory action has been 
achieved. As partners in the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program, 
rail labor participates in any significant revisions to a carrier's 
SAP.
                        sacp of norfolk southern
    Question. Has the Norfolk Southern Railroad indicated a willingness 
to participate in the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program? If not, 
what action does FRA plan to take in this regard?
    Answer. FRA conducted a limited SACP assessment of the Norfolk 
Southern in 1996 in order to identify specific safety concerns at that 
time. Following the application of CSX Transportation (CSXT) and 
Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS) to purchase Consolidated Rail 
Corporation, both carriers submitted Safety Implementation Plans 
(SIP's) to the Surface Transportation Board as part of the merger 
application process. As a result of NS's SIP, the carrier expressed a 
willingness to participate in a SACP safety audit. In April 1998, FRA 
initiated a comprehensive assessment of NS covering the following 
issues: (1) train dispatching operations, (2) accident/incident 
reporting, (3) fatigue, (4) staffing levels, (5) long noise forward 
operations, and (6) mechanical concerns, such as pre-departure and 
track repairs. Currently, outreach efforts are underway to ensure the 
participation of rail labor as partners in this assessment.
         number of site-specific inspections by region 1994-97
    Question. The SACP has shifted some of FRA's resources away from 
site-specific inspections. Please prepare a table showing the number of 
inspections conducted in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, by region and in 
aggregate, and showing the percentage of decline for each year. What do 
you believe will be the long-term effect of these declines in site-
specific inspections on railroad safety?
    Answer. The number of inspection reports filed by region during 
1994-1997 and the year-to-year percentage change follows:

                                       SUMMARY OF INSPECTION REPORTS FILED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1995 vs.              1996 vs.              1997 vs.
               Region                   1994       1995       1994       1996       1995       1997       1996
                                                           (percent)             (percent)             (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................      6,319      5,096      -19.4      5,059       -0.7      4,608       -8.9
2..................................     12,929     11,065      -14.4      9,004      -18.6      8,479       -5.8
3..................................     11,423      9,118      -20.2      8,812       -3.4      8,203       -6.9
4..................................      9,696      7,959      -17.9      7,581       -4.7      7,155       -5.6
5..................................      9,677      7,170      -25.9      6,667       -7.0      6,047       -9.3
6..................................      5,939      3,849      -35.2      3,701       -3.8      3,679       -0.6
7..................................      6,819      5,258      -22.9      5,758       +9.5      5,336       -7.3
8..................................      5,382      4,020      -25.3      4,184       +4.1      4,003       -4.3
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals.......................     68,202     53,535      -21.5     50,766       -5.2     47,516       -6.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA believes that the key to achieving an effective rail safety 
program is to strike the optimum balance between safety partnership 
initiatives and site specific inspections. The 32 additional positions 
being sought by FRA are intended to help maintain that balance. As long 
as the SACP approach is yielding positive results, safety inspectors 
may continue to conduct fewer site specific inspections as a percentage 
of their total safety activities. However, safety partnership 
activities like the Safety Assurance and Compliance program must be 
augmented by site inspections; therefore inspection levels must not be 
allowed to drop precipitously. FRA is concerned that the proper balance 
be maintained between the two approaches.
    Trends since 1993 clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the new 
way of doing business. Thus far, there has been no long-term 
detrimental effect on railroad safety as a result of declines in site-
specific inspections, because they are being replaced by more effective 
comprehensive safety audits at the largest railroads. The 32 new 
positions being sought by FRA will help ensure that the proper balance 
is maintained between FRA's new partnership programs and its 
traditional inspection programs.
                    guidance on focused enforcement
    Question. Please provide the Committee a copy of the April 1997 
guidance to FRA regional offices that explains the concept of ``focused 
enforcement.''
    Answer. See attached report.
                       fra's goal for inspection
    Question. Is it FRA's stated goal to inspect all railroads at least 
once a year? Please provide a table showing the number of railroads 
that underwent no FRA inspections for calendar years 1992-1997.
    Answer. FRA's long-term goal is to visit each active railroad 
annually, assuming adequate inspector resources are available. FRA's 
stated objective also is to visit each new railroad at initial start-
up.

                     ACTIVE RAILROADS NOT INSPECTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Active
                  Year                        Active       railroads not
                                             railroads       inspected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992....................................             635              77
1993....................................             668              88
1994....................................             688              92
1995....................................             679             115
1996....................................             704             124
1997....................................             679             144
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       safety information systems
    Question. How generally helpful have you found FRA headquarters 
information systems?
    Answer. FRA's information systems provide extensive data on each 
railroad's safety record. The Office of Safety managers use this 
information to allocate resources to locations of greatest risk. 
Information systems are used by inspectors when planning inspection 
activities. With limited resources, FRA has found its information 
systems extremely valuable for traditional site specific inspections, 
planning highway-rail grade crossing and trespass prevention programs, 
formulating Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP), and 
determining Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) rulemaking 
initiatives.
    SACP, which brings together rail labor, railroad management and FRA 
to determine the root causes of systemic railroad safety problems, has 
repeatedly depended on FRA's information systems to establish action 
plans.
    Railroads operating in multiple States and across several of FRA's 
regional field offices are best monitored using SACP safety audit 
methods. SACP's have been successful because FRA and its partners have 
had an extensive information system to use as a justification for 
actions planned. Information systems have been used for an Annual 
Allocation Analysis Model (AAAM). The AAAM aids in field inspection 
focus on high risk rail movements. The model data is arranged by 
inspection discipline, region, and railroad. Railroads are divided into 
three class size groupings: large railroads with annual employee hours 
greater than 400,000, small railroads with total train miles times 
annual employee hours greater than 100 million, and small railroads 
with total train miles times annual employee hours less than 100 
million.
    For large railroads, AAAM uses seven risk factors: inspection 
reports, accidents, fatalities and serious injuries, hazardous material 
tons, total tons, passenger traffic, and inspection defects. AAAM also 
uses seven risk factors for both categories of small railroads. 
Hazardous material tons and total tons are obtained from the Surface 
Transportation Board's Carload Waybill Sample. However, the Carload 
Waybill Sample of railroad freight traffic does not accurately track 
hazardous material traffic flows on small railroads. Consequently, 
``train miles'' and ``annual employee hours'' are substituted for 
``hazardous material tons,'' and ``total tons.'' AAAM is a model 
clearly show how valuable FRA's current information systems have been 
for determining reasonable risk factors, which can suggest the need for 
site specific examinations, or suggest an area for examination under 
Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) safety audits.
    A greater dependency on the use of FRA's Headquarters Information 
Systems is an outgrowth of President Clinton's directive to Federal 
regulatory agencies that their inspection and enforcement programs be 
designed to focus on safety results, not just collect fines. FRA also 
depends on Headquarters Information Systems to carry-out the mandate of 
the Government Performance and Results Act to identify specific 
indicators that measure the overall success of the program.
                       state inspectors and sacp
    Question. How are State inspectors adequately represented in the 
SACP process?
    Answer. FRA has made a concerted effort to ensure that States are 
adequately represented in the SACP Process. At the SACP development 
level, State Program Directors have been invited to attend and have 
participated in SACP oversight meetings. The Directors of the two 
largest State programs, Texas and California attended the initial Union 
Pacific (UP) SACP Meeting. These States are slated to participate in 
all future oversight meetings. The Texas Director also has attended 
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) SACP oversight meetings.
    Most State Program Directors do not have the ability to travel 
outside of State boundaries. To ensure that these States are apprised 
of SACP initiatives, FRA Regions and the FRA State liaison work 
together to disseminate status reports and issue briefings from SACP 
oversight meetings. Near the outset of the Union Pacific service/safety 
crisis, FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety conducted a lengthy 
conference call with Safety Program Directors of all affected States to 
provide an update on the SACP process and solicit State questions or 
concerns.
    There is a two-way exchange of information on the SACP process with 
States. State inspectors are encouraged to identify SACP safety issues. 
These issues are evaluated within the context of the SACP process for 
local or systemic implications. Whenever possible, inspection teams 
created to address SACP safety concerns have State inspectors as 
members or team leaders. Focus groups that interact with local 
management and union officials include State inspectors.
    States and FRA have also agreed to initiate an annual 
Communications/Work plan to ensure coordination on all aspects of the 
joint safety program. This structured communications protocol 
specifically addresses SACP programs and will help define specific SACP 
roles for State inspectors.
    Another venue for ensuring that States are full participants in the 
SACP process is the annual State Program Manager's meeting sponsored by 
FRA. At last year's meeting, State Directors received a complete update 
on the BNSF SACP from the BNSF Project Manager, a major union official, 
and the BNSF President. This year's State Program Director's meeting 
will include an assessment of the SACP processes currently underway.
                    follow up on safety action plans
    Question. After a railroad submits its safety action plan, how do 
FRA's procedures effectively ensure adequate follow-up and periodic 
reinspection?
    Answer. FRA's guidelines for Safety Action Plans require follow-up 
and periodic reinspection by safety inspectors. Safety Action Plans 
direct safety inspectors to the particular areas where the safety audit 
compliance is concentrated. FRA's publication, The Safety Assurance and 
Compliance Program: Guidance on Inspection and Enforcement--April 1997, 
outlines the procedures for effectively ensuring adequate follow-up and 
periodic reinspection. Also, the continuous analysis of safety factors 
in FRA's databases, e.g., accidents, incidents, defect ratios, signal 
and train control malfunctions, helps FRA's Safety Staff to identify 
additional areas requiring immediate inspection activity.
    FRA is constantly reviewing and refining SACP to promote and/or 
facilitate safer operating procedures and practices in the railroad 
industry. Currently, a comprehensive review of the SACP is underway. 
FRA anticipates issuing revised SACP guidelines prior to fiscal year 
1999. A major emphasis during this review is evaluating the 
effectiveness and responsiveness of FRA's audit process while 
monitoring a carrier's Safety Action Plan.
                     approval process of sacp plans
    Question. Does FRA require that safety profiles, action plans, and 
follow-up audit plans prepared by the field receive approval by FRA 
headquarters? If not, at what level are these items approved?
    Answer. The level of organizational approval that is necessary for 
Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) safety profiles, action 
plans and follow-up audit plans is based on a number of factors related 
to carrier size, scope and complexity of operations, and overall safety 
record history. Regardless of the organizational approval level, all 
carriers' action plans are forwarded to FRA Headquarters for review. In 
general, Headquarters approval is required for SACP activities 
involving Class I carriers and for issues that have railroad system-
wide consequences. In most other instances, approval is delegated to 
the SACP Program Manager and/or a Regional Administrator.
            inspector participation in penalty negotiations
    Question. How involved in the violation negotiations process are 
the FRA safety inspectors who actually wrote up these violations?
    Answer. FRA conducts settlement conferences on civil penalty cases 
with the major railroads on at least an annual basis. FRA tries to 
schedule as many of these conferences as possible outside of Washington 
to facilitate attendance by FRA and state enforcement personnel. Of 
course, it is not possible to involve every inspector who wrote a 
violation report in every settlement conference in which it is 
discussed. Inspectors write up violations against many railroads and 
cannot invest the time needed to participate in several major 
settlement conferences. Even if they could, limited travel budgets and 
the space limitations of conference rooms require that attendance be 
restricted. As a result, only a few inspectors and regional specialists 
attend each conference. Their role is to participate in discussion of 
particular sets of facts, compliance problems, or policies, and to 
advise FRA counsel on strengths and weaknesses of the agency's cases 
and the railroad's defenses. Inspectors and regional personnel 
invariably say that this participation is enormously useful because it 
gives them a new perspective on how to write stronger violation 
reports, what kinds of factors can be offered as defenses and 
mitigating factors, and how reasoned compromise of the penalties 
encourages compliance. FRA attorneys benefit from the insights provided 
by the enforcement personnel. With regard to small railroad and shipper 
cases, such direct involvement in settlement discussion by field 
personnel is rare. Those cases are usually handled by correspondence or 
telephone. Occasionally, the volume of pending cases or seriousness of 
the violations will warrant a conference with a small railroad or 
shipper, and field personnel are generally invited.
    In none of these situations, however, do the enforcement personnel 
engage in negotiations to the extent of discussing the amount of a 
dollar settlement directly with the railroad. FRA believes that it is 
better from the program integrity perspective to insulate front line 
enforcement personnel from such direct negotiations on the penalties 
resulting from their recommendations. Their direct involvement in 
penalty negotiations would raise questions of consistency of treatment 
and could expose the inspectors to an unnecessary vulnerability to 
fraud and abuse. Their current level of involvement seems to work well 
for all concerned.
                      written guidelines for sacp
    Question. What are the written guidelines regarding the procedures 
for the SACP? How are these guidelines fair to both labor and 
management?
    Answer. The following guidelines and publications which outline 
procedures for SACP have been issued: (1) Safety Assurance and 
Compliance Process--Initial Senior Management Meetings; (2) Federal 
Railroad Administration--Safety Assurance and Compliance Program--
Summary Report; (3) Enhancing Rail Safety Now and Into the 21st 
Century: The Federal Railroad Administration's Safety Programs and 
Initiatives (A Report to Congress); and (4) The Safety Assurance and 
Compliance Program: Guidance on Inspection and Enforcement--April 1997.
    SACP establishes partnerships between rail labor, railroad 
management, and FRA to identify and address safety concerns. All 
participants in the SACP, regardless of their affiliation, have equal 
standing in recommending measures for alleviating safety concerns.
    Due to the evolutionary changes in the SACP, a task force has been 
established to review existing guidelines and make recommendations for 
possible change or modifications.
                           standards for sacp
    Question. Has FRA developed standards and criteria for carrying out 
SACP to ensure that the program is applied uniformly? What SACP 
training is provided to FRA management and inspection staff?
    Answer. FRA has developed standards and criteria for ensuring 
consistency in the interpretation of rules and regulations pertaining 
to compliance and enforcement activities. These same standards and 
criteria are applied in the course of developing findings and 
recommendations during a SACP safety audit and are the ``measurements'' 
for determining a carrier's performance in adequately addressing safety 
discipline-related concerns. FRA is in the process of revising SACP. 
Under consideration are providing more definitive guidelines regarding 
the identification and utilization of quantitative measures during the 
assessment of a carrier.
    Training for the inspector force on the SACP is provided annually 
at FRA's Multi-Regional Conferences and, as appropriate, during 
meetings of various Technical Resolution Committees.
                       sacp and smaller railroads
    Question. What is FRA's experience with the SACP for smaller 
railroads? Is SACP effective for smaller railroads, considering that 
the intended purpose of SACP is to identify systemic safety problems? 
Are the SACP procedures the same for smaller railroads as for large 
railroads?
    Answer. SACP uses a rail labor/management/FRA partnership approach 
to identifying and solving safety concerns within the railroad 
industry. The difference between a SACP safety audit of a Class I 
carrier versus that of a smaller carrier is one of magnitude--the size 
of each entity's operations determines the amount of effort to be used 
in the process. Nevertheless, the procedures followed are identical--
safety profile/action plan/follow-up audit. A systemic safety problem 
may exist on any carrier's property. However, the size of the carrier 
does not affect the effectiveness of the procedures or process.
                      additional funding for rsac
    Question. FRA has requested additional funding for the Railroad 
Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). Please break down all associated 
spending, justifying the requested increase to support the RSAC, 
including facilities, mailings, equipment, contract support, and the 
``other'' support costs. Please further specify exactly how fiscal year 
1997 and fiscal year 1998 monies were used for RSAC.
    Answer. The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) provides FRA 
with advice and recommendations on the development of safety standards 
and other important issues facing the federal railroad safety 
regulatory program. This process shifts the focus of FRA's regulatory 
program to one of greater collaboration with the regulated community in 
arriving at mutually satisfactory solutions. RSAC produces consensus on 
underlying factual issues, the range of options, and the recommended 
solutions. By harnessing the combined wisdom, resources and experience 
of railroad industry experts who have the greatest knowledge and 
interest in promoting rail safety, FRA is able to leverage its 
resources to simultaneously conduct a number of major rulemakings, 
often much more quickly than can be accomplished under the traditional 
approach. RSAC is undertaking some of FRA's toughest, most 
controversial regulatory challenges.
    The RSAC structure consists of voting representatives from 27 
organizations representing large and small railroads, rail labor 
organizations, state associations, rail passenger representatives, 
suppliers, other interested parties, and two associate representatives 
from agencies with rail responsibilities in Canada and Mexico. Initial 
funding levels did not anticipate the overwhelming industry embracement 
of this process. Railroad labor and management are dedicating 
significant resources to the success of this collaborative rulemaking 
process. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, an estimated 500 
full Committee, Working Group and Task Force members and alternates 
have participated in more than 75 meetings to address 13 issues such as 
track safety standards and positive train control. The magnitude of the 
resources dedicated is reflective of the participants' commitment to 
the success of this process.
    Based the number of regulatory issues being undertaken by RSAC, the 
intensive committee work necessary to achieve RSAC's collaborative 
purposes, and the fact that the committee is in a necessary growth 
phase in terms of the number of its tasks, we believe our request for 
funding is reasonable.
    The additional $100,000 requested would support the fiscal year 
1999 RSAC activities at an optimum level for reducing FRA's regulatory 
backlog. Railroad labor and management are dedicating significant 
resources to the success of this rulemaking process. Funding below the 
requested level would severely impact the effectiveness of this process 
and the resulting critical contributions to public safety envisioned by 
all parties dedicated to the success of collaborative rulemaking. The 
additional funding would be allocated as follows:
    Travel funds are required ($20,000) for invitational travel for 
state organizational employees who serve as Committee, Working Group, 
and Task Force members. Their participation in the RSAC process is 
essential to ensuring representation of interests other than railroad 
management and labor which are directly affected by FRA's safety 
regulatory program.
    Facilitation service funding ($25,000) is essential to the success 
of the negotiated rulemaking process. The demands placed on the limited 
number of in-house facilitators necessitates the use of professional 
facilitators. Professional facilitators are crucial to avert delay in 
the negotiated rulemaking process.
    Support for contractual services for specialized data collection 
and analyses and other technical and administrative requirements in 
support of Committee, Working Group and Task Force activities 
($45,000). These services are a critical requirement to supplement 
existing staff and address an escalating workload without increasing 
staffing levels. Meetings of working groups and task forces will have 
to accommodate the needs of members in order to elicit continued rail 
labor and management support and participation in the process. 
Locations outside of FRA headquarters or regional areas will require 
contractual support to meet the administrative requirements for these 
meetings. Specialized data collection and analyses will be required to 
support the work of the task forces. Absent these services, the burden 
that will be imposed upon existing safety resources will further strain 
limited resources and continue to divert and dilute efforts being 
directed to other critical functions.
    Funding for training ($10,000) provides requisite interest-based 
negotiation training for Committee, Working Group and Task Force 
members to ensure effective participation in this consensual rulemaking 
process.
    These funds will supplement the $100,000 that is in FRA's base for 
RSAC, which would be allocated as follows:
    Funding for meeting space and accompanying audio/visual 
requirements for the full Committee, Working Groups and Task Forces 
($55,000) to accommodate meeting space requirements based on the number 
of participants required to be seated at the table, attendance by 
members of the general public and additional space necessary for 
essential caucus and task force activities. Federal agency space 
available to accommodate these requirements is extremely limited and in 
great demand in the Washington D.C. area. Further constraints for RSAC 
meetings are restrictions on entrances to many federal buildings. The 
majority of RSAC members and other attendees are not federal government 
employees and the meetings are open to the general public. Meetings are 
conducted at locations outside of the Washington area to facilitate 
member participation and availability and to equitably distribute the 
burden of travel time and costs for members. This funding will also 
provide necessary audio-visual support for these meetings.
    Funding for supplies, printing and mailing services ($42,000) are 
essential to support the meetings and work of the full Committee, the 
Working Groups and Task Forces. Adequate funding to support processing 
and dissemination of information and data crucial to the ongoing 
regulatory tasks and the extensive coordination involved, will ensure 
the effectiveness of this extremely significant undertaking is not 
compromised.
    Funding for interpreter services ($3,000) is requested to address 
the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.
    The $50,000 Congress authorized for RSAC in fiscal year 1997 was 
utilized primarily in support of costs associated with supplies, 
printing, mailing costs, meeting space, and accompanying audio/visual 
requirements for three full Committee meetings and an estimated 36 
working group and task force meetings.
    The $100,000 funding level for fiscal year 1998 will continue to 
support costs associated with supplies, printing, mailing costs, and 
meeting space and associated requirements for meetings of the full 
Committee, working groups, and task forces.
                      rsac rulemaking achievement
    Question. Please assess the costs, benefits, challenges, and 
successes or accomplishments of the RSAC.
    Answer. RSAC provides FRA with a continuing forum for advice and 
recommendations on the development of the railroad safety regulatory 
program. This collaborative rulemaking approach fully involves FRA's 
customers, including representatives of railroad labor and management, 
and makes the best use of resources to accommodate the rapidly evolving 
changes in the rail transportation industry. Because the final rule is 
based on consent, acceptance and understanding are widespread and 
compliance is at high levels from the start. Railroad management and 
railroad labor are dedicating significant resources to the success of 
this collaborative process.
    Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, an estimated 800 full 
Committee, Working Group and Task Force members and alternates have 
participated in more than 80 meetings addressing such issues as track 
safety standards, railroad communications, locomotive crew safety, 
locomotive engineer certification, event recorders, tourist and 
historic railroads, and positive train control.
    The Committee has been working on some of FRA's toughest, most 
controversial regulatory challenges. The 13 tasks which have been 
referred to, and accepted by the RSAC to date, are highlighted in the 
next question and answer. Through the collaborative efforts of RSAC, 
the following regulatory achievements to date are:
    Revision of Track Safety Standards.--The RSAC accepted the task of 
preparing an NPRM on April 1, 1996. The NPRM was published on July 3, 
1997. A public hearing was held on September 4, 1997, and the final 
rule is in review and clearance and will be issued in the near future.
    A significant issue in the Congressional mandate for revising the 
Track Safety Standards was the protection of roadway workers. FRA 
issued a final rule on roadway worker safety, which became effective on 
January 15, 1997. This rule was the product of FRA's first negotiated 
rulemaking and represents the collaborative efforts of all major 
segments of the railroad industry.
    Railroad Communications.--The RSAC accepted the task of preparing 
an NPRM on April 1, 1996. The NPRM was issued on June 11, 1997. The 
final rule is nearing completion and it is expected to be issued within 
the coming months.
    Recently, the Committee approved the first proposed revision to 
steam locomotive rules in half a century. The NPRM will be published 
within the next few weeks. This effort, which deals with historic 
locomotives still used in scenic and excursion service, involved 
collaboration among representatives of the small railroads that own 
those locomotives and FRA. The Committee is presently voting on a 
consensus revision of the regulations for Locomotive Engineer 
Qualification and Certification.
                        rulemaking tasks to rsac
    Question. How many rulemaking tasks has FRA referred to the RSAC? 
How long had FRA been working on each of these rulemaking tasks prior 
to referring them to the RSAC? For the tasks referred to the committee, 
how many had FRA already missed the congressional mandate to issue 
final rules? Has the Administrator withdrawn any of the tasks referred 
to the committee? If so, what were the reasons for withdrawing tasks 
referred to the RSAC?
    Answer. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, 15 tasks have 
been referred to, and accepted by, the Committee.
    See the attached list detailing how long FRA had been working on 
each of these rulemakings prior to referring them to RSAC.
    Although FRA is making good progress in reducing a regulatory 
backlog that arose against a background of successive statutory 
mandates, the issuance of final rules addressing all elements of the 
revision of track safety standards and the power brake rules have not 
met statutory deadlines.
    The extended statutory deadline for revision of the track safety 
standards was September 1, 1995. FRA published an ANPRM on November 6, 
1992. The RSAC accepted the task of preparing an NPRM on April 2, 1996. 
FRA published an NPRM on July 3, 1997, and a final rule is in review 
and clearance.
    The statutory deadline for revision of the power brake rules was 
December 31, 1993. An NPRM was published on September 16, 1994. Based 
on differences between passenger and freight operations, passenger 
equipment power brake standards were separated from freight and 
included in the Passenger Equipment Standards NPRM published September 
23, 1997. FRA is preparing the final rule. Two-way end-of-train rules 
were separated from the balance of freight issues and a final rule was 
published January 2, 1997. Railroads agreed to an expedited schedule 
and trains were equipped ahead of the statutory deadline.
    The general revision of the freight power brake rules were tasked 
to the RSAC on April 1, 1996. After a period of over a year of intense 
efforts, a consensus between railroad labor and management could not be 
reached on several contentious issues and FRA formally withdrew the 
task on June 24, 1997. FRA is proceeding with the issuance of a second 
NPRM reflective of what FRA has learned through the collaborative 
process.
                history of rulemakings referred to rsac
    Revision of Freight Power Brake Regulations.--The 1992 Rail Safety 
Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to revise the power 
brake regulations. FRA did complete the portion of the rule involving 
two-way end-of train devices (EOT's) and it became effective on July 1, 
1997. FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 
16, 1994, and conducted six days of public hearings. Additional options 
were requested from passenger interests and freight interests. 
Passenger power brake provisions were included in the Passenger 
Equipment Standards NPRM published September 23, 1997, and a final rule 
is in preparation. Revision of the freight power brake regulations was 
tasked to RSAC on April 1, 1996. After a period of over a year of 
intense efforts, a consensus between railroad labor and management 
could not be reached on several contentious issues. FRA formally 
withdrew the freight power brake task at the June 24, 1997, RSAC 
meeting, and FRA is proceeding with the issuance of an NPRM reflective 
of what FRA has learned through the collaborative process.
    Revision of Track Safety Standards.--The 1992 safety authorization 
act required FRA to issue revised track rules. FRA published an 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on November 6, 1992, and 
conducted workshops during the period January-March 1993. The RSAC 
accepted the task of preparing an NPRM on April 2, 1996. In November 
1996, the RSAC voted to recommend issuance of the NPRM and FRA 
published an NPRM on July 3, 1997. A public hearing was held on 
September 4, 1997, with comments due by December 22, 1997. A final rule 
is in review and clearance.
    Railroad Communications.--FRA, in submitting a report to Congress 
on Railroad Communications and Train Control on July 13, 1994, noted 
the need to revise existing Federal standards for radio communications 
in concert with railroads and employee representatives. The RSAC 
accepted the task of preparing an NPRM, including consideration of 
communication capabilities required in railroad operations, on April 1, 
1996. The RSAC voted to recommend issuance of an NPRM. The NPRM was 
issued on June 11, 1997. The comment period closed on August 25, 1997, 
and FRA is nearing completion of the final rule.
    Tourist, Excursion, Scenic and Historic Service.--The Swift 
Railroad Development Act of 1994 required FRA to submit a report to 
Congress regarding FRA's actions to recognize the unique factors 
associated with these generally small passenger operations that often 
utilize historic equipment. The report was submitted to the Congress on 
June 10, 1996. The RSAC authorized formation of a working group on 
Tourist and Historic Railroads on April 1, 1996, to promote the safe 
operation of tourist and historic rail operations. The working group is 
currently monitoring completion of the steam locomotive regulations 
task.
    Revision of Steam-Powered Locomotive Inspection Standards.--A 
committee of steam locomotive experts from tourist and historic 
railroads have sought a partnership with FRA to revise the steam 
locomotive regulations. Revision of the regulations was tasked to the 
RSAC on July 24, 1996. The working group on Tourist and Historic 
Railroads created a task force to address this task. The task force's 
proposed recommendations were accepted by the working group and 
forwarded to the RSAC. The RSAC voted to recommend issuance of an NPRM 
and FRA is finalizing the regulatory analysis to accompany publication 
of the NPRM.
    Revision of Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineer 
Regulations.--The final rule for locomotive engineer certification 
became effective in 1991, but certain issues were left unresolved. 
Experience under the rule has also raised additional issues. An interim 
final rule amendment was published on October 12, 1995. The RSAC 
accepted a task to revise the regulations on October 31, 1996. It is 
expected that the working group will submit a proposed NPRM to the RSAC 
at its next meeting on May 14, 1998.
    Safety Standards for Track Motor Vehicles and Self Propelled 
Roadway Equipment.--During deliberations of the working group on Track 
Safety Standards, the issue of proposing standards relating to the 
safety of persons riding or operating maintenance-of-way equipment was 
raised. On October 31, 1996, the RSAC accepted a task of drafting 
proposed rules for safety of this equipment. A task force was formed to 
address the issue and the task force reached a consensus agreement in 
principle on what should be included in the proposed rule. FRA is 
preparing rule text and preamble language to be presented to the RSAC 
at its next meeting on May 14, 1998.
    Locomotive Crashworthiness and Working Conditions Planning Task.--
The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to 
conduct a proceeding regarding locomotive crashworthiness and working 
conditions and issue regulations or submit a report. FRA conducted 
research, outreach, and a survey of locomotive conditions and finalized 
a report to the Congress entitled Locomotive Crashworthiness & Working 
Conditions, transmitted by letter of September 18, 1996. The report 
conveyed data and information developed by FRA to date, closed out 
those areas of investigation for which further action is not warranted, 
and defined issues that should be pursued further in concert with 
industry parties, either for voluntary or regulatory action. The RSAC 
accepted a planning task on October 31, 1996, to evaluate the need for 
action responsive to recommendations contained in the report. A 
planning group reviewed the report and grouped issues into categories. 
FRA presented a task statement addressing locomotive crashworthiness 
and a task statement addressing cab working conditions to the RSAC on 
June 24, 1997.
    Locomotive Crashworthiness.--On October 31, 1996, the RSAC voted to 
accept a task addressing locomotive crashworthiness issues. The working 
group on Locomotive Crashworthiness established a task force on 
engineering issues that is actively reviewing collision history and 
design options.
    Locomotive Cab Working Conditions.--On October 31, 1996, the RSAC 
voted to accept a task addressing cab working conditions issues. The 
working group on Cab Working Conditions established task forces on 
noise and temperature, which are working actively.
    Revision of Event Recorder Requirements.--In issuing final rules 
for event recorders which became effective May 5, 1995, FRA noted the 
need to provide more refined technical standards. The National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) noted the loss of data from event 
recorders in several accidents due to fire, water and mechanical 
damage. NTSB proposed performance standards and agreed to serve as co-
chair for an industry/government working group that would define 
technical standards for next-generation railroad event recorders. FRA 
conducted a meeting of an informal working group comprised of railroad 
labor and management and co-chaired by NTSB on December 7, 1995, to 
consider development of technical standards. At the July 24-25, 1996, 
RSAC meeting, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) agreed to 
continue the inquiry and on November 1, 1996, reported the status of 
work on proposed industry standards to the RSAC. On March 5, 1997, the 
NTSB issued recommendations regarding testing and maintenance of event 
recorders as a result of finding in the investigation of an accident on 
February 1, 1996, at Cajon Pass, California. On March 24, 1997, the 
RSAC indicated its desire to receive a task to consider the NTSB 
recommendations with respect to crash survivability, testing and 
maintenance. A task was presented to, and accepted by, the RSAC on June 
24, 1997. An Event Recorder working group was formed and a task force 
established. The working group and task force are actively conducting 
meetings.
    Positive Train Control (PTC) Systems.--The Swift Rail Development 
Act of 1994 required FRA to submit a status report on the 
implementation of positive train control as a follow-up to the July 
1994 report entitled Railroad Communications and Train Control. FRA has 
provided testimony to the committees of jurisdiction reporting the 
status of efforts to promote implementation of positive train control. 
The report is under review and clearance.
    On September 30, 1997, the RSAC accepted two tasks involving 
defining PTC functionalities, describing available technologies, 
evaluating costs and benefit of potential systems, and considering 
implementation opportunities and challenges, including demonstration 
and deployment. A third task accepted by the RSAC requires revising 
various regulations to address the safety implications of processor-
based signal and train control technologies, including communications-
based operating systems. A working group was convened to address the 
tasks and two task forces were established, a Standards task force and 
an Data and Implementation task force. The working group and task 
forces are active and FRA is preparing an ANPRM to provide public 
notice of the ongoing tasks and solicit public comment.
    Definition of Reportable ``Train Accident''.--FRA identified the 
need to comprehensively revise the regulations governing accident/
incident reporting, which had not been revised since 1974. FRA issued 
an NPRM on August 19, 1994, and a final rule on May 30, 1996. Technical 
amendments were published on November 22, 1996, and the FRA 
Administrator signed final rule amendments on December 16, 1996. The 
final rule became effective on January 1, 1997. On June 24, 1997, the 
RSAC reviewed a request by an RSAC member to clarify the means used by 
railroads to estimate railroad property damage and improve the 
consistency of reporting. The RSAC accepted the task on September 30, 
1997, limited to determination of damages qualifying an event as a 
reportable train accident. A working group is being formed to address 
this task.
                         track safety standards
    Question. By the time FRA referred the Track Safety Standards 
rulemaking to the RSAC in April 1996, the agency had already been 
working on revising the Track Safety Standards for more than three 
years. The committee developed a recommendation on the standards within 
7 months, and FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on July 3, 
1997. When does FRA anticipate issuing a final rule?
    Answer. The final rule on the revised Track Safety Standards has 
been completed and is pending clearance within the Administration. FRA 
expects to issue the final rule in the near future. In the interim, the 
industry is operating under rules that have long been in place and 
ensure a very high degree of track safety.
    The following points should be noted:
  --Congress specifically directed FRA to consider the protection of 
        roadway workers. FRA issued a final rule on the protection of 
        these workers which became effective on January 15, 1997, with 
        a high degree of commitment to compliance by workers and 
        railroads. This rule was the product of the first negotiated 
        rulemaking and represents the collaborative efforts of all 
        major segments of the railroad industry.
  --The final rule currently under review is based almost entirely on 
        the consensus recommendations of the RSAC. While it took time 
        to develop that consensus and reduce it to regulatory form, FRA 
        believes the final rule will be worth the effort.
               completed rulemakings in fiscal year 1997
    Question. Please list all final regulations, ANPRM's, NPRM's and 
any new regulatory projects issued or pursued since last year.
    Answer. FRA completed the following rulemakings in fiscal year 
1997:
  --The final rule on Two-Way End-of-Train Devices was published on 
        January 2, 1997.
  --The final rule on Roadway Worker Safety became effective on January 
        15, 1997.
  --The final rule on Accident/Incident Reporting became effective on 
        January 1, 1997.
    FRA currently has a substantial number of rulemakings at various 
stages of development. The following regulatory-related actions also 
were accomplished in the last year:
  --A proposed rule on Passenger Equipment Safety Standards was 
        published on September 23, 1997.
  --A proposed rule on Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness was 
        published on February 24, 1997.
  --A proposed rule revising the Track Safety Standards, which was 
        based on consensus recommendations of the RSAC, was published 
        on July 3, 1997.
  --A proposed rule revising the existing standards for radio 
        communications and based on consensus recommendations of the 
        RSAC, was issued on June 11, 1997.
  --A proposed rule was issued on December 12, 1997, in response to a 
        petition for a rule of particular applicability for operations 
        over a new high-speed railroad between Miami and Tampa via 
        Orlando. The State of Florida has established a dedicated 
        funding stream of $70 million per year towards creation of this 
        new private/public partnership.
  --A Notice of Proposed Order for the new signal and train control 
        system authorizing speeds to 150 miles per hour on portions of 
        the Northeast Corridor was published on November 20, 1997.
                      status of regulatory backlog
    Question. What is the current regulatory backlog? What are the 
nature and status of each of these projects?
    Answer. FRA is making good progress in reducing a regulatory 
backlog that arose against a background of successive statutory 
mandates and limited resources.
    FRA has addressed the backlog with hard work and new collaborative 
approaches designed to find solutions that are based on good data and 
responsive to cost/benefit concerns.
    In some cases, research has been necessary to lay the foundation 
for regulatory action. Research costs money, and acquiring funding 
takes time.
    Major overdue rules--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Statutory
     Requirement (date enacted)           deadline                           Status; comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power brake rules, revise (9/3/92).  12/31/93.........  2-way EOT rules were final and trains were equipped in
                                                         1997, ahead of 12/31/97 statutory deadline.
                                                        Passenger power brake provisions were included in
                                                         Passenger Equipment St'ds NPRM published 9/23/97--
                                                         preparing final rule.
                                                        General revision of freight power brake rules--second
                                                         NPRM this summer.
Track safety standards (9/3/92)....  9/1/95 (as         NPRM based on RSAC recommendation published 7/3/97;
                                      extended 11/2/     final rule in review and clearance.
                                      94).
Whistle bans (11/2/94, amended 10/9/ 11/2/96..........  NPRM based on extensive public outreach is in review and
 96).                                                    clearance.
Passenger safety standards           11/2/97..........  Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness final rule based
 (initial) (11/2/94).                                    on working group consensus is in review and clearance.
                                                        Passenger Equipment Safety Standards NPRM was issued 9/
                                                         23/97; consultations completed 1/6/98; final rule in
                                                         preparation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    statutorily mandated regulations
    Question. Which are the regulatory projects that are statutorily 
mandated, and when were these due for final issuance? What is the 
status of each?
    Answer. Although FRA is making good progress in reducing a 
regulatory backlog that arose against a background of successive 
statutory mandates, the issuance of final rules addressing all elements 
of the revision of the power brake rules and revision of the track 
safety standards have not met statutory deadlines.
    Track Safety Standards.--The revision of existing regulations 
includes, among other things, the review of excepted track and 
standards for high-speed service. A proposed rule based on consensus 
recommendations of the RSAC was published on July 3, 1997. A public 
hearing was held on September 4, 1997, and additional comment was 
invited regarding certain high-speed track geometry issues. FRA has 
prepared a final rule which is pending clearance. FRA expects the final 
rule to be issued in the very near future.
    Passenger Equipment Safety Standards.--The Federal Railroad Safety 
Authorization Act of 1994, which was enacted on November 2, 1994, 
requires FRA to issue initial passenger safety standards within three 
years and complete standards within five years. Congress authorized FRA 
to consult with industry parties outside the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, making it possible to conduct an informal negotiated rulemaking. 
FRA is conducting this regulatory mandate in two separate rulemakings, 
one on passenger equipment standards, and the other on emergency 
preparedness. A proposed rule on Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 
was published on September 23, 1997, and a public hearing was conducted 
on November 21, 1997. FRA is preparing the final rule for the first 
phase of the rulemaking. Following issuance of the ``initial'' final 
rule, work will begin on additional passenger safety regulations.
    Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness.--The final rule was issued 
on May 4, 1998 and has a effective date of July 6,1998. The rule 
requires the preparation, adoption, and implementation of emergency 
preparedness plans by railroads connected with the operation of 
passenger trains, includinge all railroads hosting the operations of 
rail passenger service. The plans must address such subjects as 
communication, employee training, joint operations, tunnel safety, 
liaison with emergency responders, on-board emergency equipment, and 
passenger safety information. The plan will be subject to formal review 
and approval by FRA.
    Power Brakes.--In response to a 1992 statutory mandate, the various 
recommendations and petitions for rulemaking, and due to its own 
determination that the power brake regulations were in need of 
revision, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
regarding revisions to the power brake regulation on September 16, 
1994. Due to the strong objections raised by a large number of 
commenters at these public hearings, FRA announced in early 1995 that 
it would defer action on the NPRM and permit the submission of 
additional comments prior to making a determination as to how it would 
proceed in this matter. Beginning in mid-1995, while continuing to 
receive comments on the 1994 power brake NPRM, FRA internally committed 
to the process of establishing the Rail Safety Advisory Committee 
(RSAC). At the Committee's inaugural meeting on April 1-2, 1996, the 
RSAC officially accepted the task of assisting FRA in development of 
revisions to the regulations governing power brake systems for freight 
equipment.
    In the interim, FRA proceeded with the revision of other portions 
of the power brake regulations through other processes. FRA decided to 
separate passenger equipment power brake standards from freight 
equipment power brake standards. In late-1995 it was determined that 
the passenger equipment safety standards working group would assist FRA 
in developing a second NPRM covering passenger equipment power brake 
standards. On September 23, 1997, FRA published an NPRM on passenger 
equipment safety standards which contained proposed power brake 
standards for passenger trains and equipment. A final rule on passenger 
operations is currently being prepared. Furthermore, in early-1996 FRA 
determined that it would separate the issues related to two-way EOT's 
from both the passenger and freight issues, address them in a public 
regulatory conference, and issue a final rule on the subject as soon as 
practicable. A final rule on two-way EOT's was issued on December 27, 
1996. The final rule's effective date was July 1, 1997, six months 
ahead of the statutory mandate requiring the use of such devices.
    Beginning in May of 1996 and continuing through May of 1997, the 
Freight Power Brake Working Group, assembled by the RSAC Committee, 
held numerous meetings and small group discussions. Although the 
Working Group discussed, debated, and attempted to reach consensus on 
various issues related to freight power brakes, consensus could not be 
reached. Consequently, FRA withdrew the freight power brake task from 
the Working Group on June 24, 1997 and informed the members of RSAC 
that FRA would proceed unilaterally in the drafting of a freight power 
brake NPRM. Since that time, FRA has been exhaustively developing 
another NPRM dealing exclusively with freight power brakes and is 
currently in the process of finishing its internal review of the 
document and will submit the document for administration review in the 
very near future. In developing the NPRM, FRA has carefully considered 
the information, data, and proposals developed by the Freight Power 
Brake Working Group as well as all the oral and written comments 
offered by various parties regarding the 1994 NPRM on power brakes.
    Grade Crossing Whistle Bans.--This rulemaking would require the 
sounding of locomotive whistles at all crossings unless alternate 
safety measures compensate for their absence as a warning to motorists. 
A Federal rule would preempt many state and local whistle bans. A 
proposed rule addressing the first phase of this rulemaking has been 
prepared and reviewed within the administration. As a result of this 
review, it has been concluded that a full Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) is required. Necessary data collection and analysis has 
begun. FRA now anticipates a simultaneous release of an NPRM and a 
draft EIS in late 1998. FRA has done and continues to do extensive 
outreach across the country to explain to local communities how the 
delicate balance between the interests of safety and quiet communities 
can be reached. FRA's proposed rule will strive to achieve the law's 
important safety objectives in a way that will provide communities 
maximum flexibility and ample opportunity to maintain quiet.
                     performance based regulations
    Question. How is FRA moving towards more performance-based 
regulations?
    Answer. Risk assessment is the key to establishing performance-
oriented regulations. FRA is using risk assessment to evaluate rail 
corridors, which may become candidates for the installation of Positive 
Train Control Systems. The Agency foresees increasing use of this 
technique in the future. But creating the climate for performance-
oriented regulation requires building confidence among critical 
constituent groups. In addition, it is essential that any new 
regulatory approach considered by FRA provides a constructive means of 
engaging the railroads. This can best be accomplished by developing 
performance standards that address discrete areas of concern, 
implementing those standards successfully, and moving toward more 
flexible approaches as experience is acquired. The Railroad Safety 
Advisory Committee (RSAC) and other collaborative rulemaking forums 
provide venues for moving this evolution forward at a pace that is 
realistic in light of available technical knowledge and all relevant 
externalities. FRA is subject to a significant list of legislative 
mandates requiring specific types of technology and practice. FRA is 
not at liberty to set these priorities aside in favor of a top-to-
bottom rewrite of its regulations. System safety planning and risk 
analysis are important tools and are increasingly critical as 
technology presents new challenges. However, safety is earned through 
daily, sustained effort across a broad front of activities. There is no 
experience of which we are aware that would warrant wholesale 
abandonment of safety strategies that work. Prescriptive regulations 
work well in some contexts without inhibiting innovation (e.g., 
specific operating rules and restrictions on alcohol/drug use), and 
some performance standards prove difficult to enforce over time (e.g., 
verifying the current functioning of high temperature thermal 
protection for tank cars). Rather, a process of transition and growth 
must be initiated and tended at whatever pace it can be appropriately 
sustained.
    The field of high-speed rail is one in which FRA has been most 
aggressive in utilizing system safety and risk assessment techniques to 
fashion a regulatory approach. Our forthcoming notices of proposed 
rulemaking for passenger equipment safety and for the Florida Overland 
Express strongly emphasize system safety planning. FRA believes that 
this effort can provide the beginning of a template for dedicated 
operations. However, the reality confronted by a regulatory agency in 
evaluating an entirely new service involves many complex issues. 
Benchmark criteria are needed for systems, subsystems and critical 
components in order to evaluate the nature and magnitude of technical 
risk before system risk can be fairly estimated.
    The complexity of the effort is certainly no reason not to 
implement the system safety concept. FRA's Safety Assurance and 
Compliance Program shifts the Agency's routine safety monitoring from a 
site-specific to a systems assessment approach. However, system safety 
is a process and discipline that must be internalized by the entity 
actually operating the service. Prior audits of entities that have 
prepared system safety plans have sometimes found that planning 
documents have become stale and were not well integrated into the 
actual operation of the service. FRA seeks to foster meaningful system 
safety planning that becomes an essential element in the way the system 
is actually operated. To the extent this safety focus is established 
and maintained, reinforcement can be provided through allowance for 
much greater flexibility with respect to the manner in which safety 
objectives are achieved. Arriving at this state of maturity will not 
come quickly, and it cannot be forced through an administrative 
timetable.
    With respect to railroad safety regulation specifically, FRA is 
scrutinized daily by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 
the Office of the Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, 
various offices within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 
congressional committees, and the full range of external agency 
customers. FRA rulemakings are subject to Executive Branch and 
Departmental review and clearance procedures that are identical to 
those employed for the Federal Aviation Administration, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other DOT agencies. The 
issues and challenges regarding the manner in which regulations are 
crafted can be clearly discerned by those who spend time working within 
the process, though the appropriate way of resolving many of these will 
remain in dispute.
    FRA finds that component standards may still be needed in many 
cases. For example, a standard for wheel/rail interaction is optimal if 
there is just one wheel design using the track. Since there are many, 
the rail specification may need to reflect ``worst case.''
    The proposed high-speed track standards feature performance 
standards for wheel/rail interaction, which are based on extensive 
research and experience internationally. FRA does not specify wheel 
metallurgy, wheel profile, rail head profile, truck design, etc. That 
same document, however, addresses other issues in a more directive 
manner. Gage and other geometry constants are provided so that a 
variety of equipment manufacturers will know how to achieve the desired 
wheel/rail interaction. Other component standards have been proposed 
where constituent groups engaged in the RSAC negotiation felt that they 
were necessary (and railroad representatives assented) or where use of 
performance criteria would really be impractical. Many benefits flow 
from this pragmatic approach.
    In virtually all areas of regulation, further research will 
certainly be appropriate to broaden our knowledge base so that we can 
more confidently fashion performance standards (e.g., research into the 
thermal tolerances of wheels and discs), but where this learning is not 
available, more traditional standards will have to serve.
                            hazmat accidents
    Question. Please chronicle all major hazmat-involved rail accidents 
in calendar year 1997, noting date, location, railroad, type of hazmat, 
any fatalities, injuries, evacuations or other complications, and the 
estimated cost of damage and loss for each. Please also summarize the 
probable cause of each accident
    Answer. The following major rail accidents involving the release of 
a hazardous material are summarized below:

Date: 01-22-97
Location: Appleby, Texas
Railroad: BNSF
Type of hazmat: Sodium Hydroxide Solution
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: One family
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $1,700,000
Probable cause: Broken Rail

Date: 04-21-97
Location: Sandusky, Ohio
Railroad: Conrail
Type of hazmat: Residue/Sodium Hydroxide
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 150 residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $1,167,800
Probable cause: Excessive draft and buff slack action due to train 
    handling

Date: 05-30-97
Location: Schuyler, New York (Herkimer)
Railroad: Conrail
Type of hazmat: Hydrochloric Acid
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 60 residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $559,875
Probable cause: Excessive draft force causing draw bar to be pulled out 
    of the 36th car

Date: 06-04-97
Location: Marianna, Florida
Railroad: CSX
Type of hazmat: Hydrogen Peroxide and Hydroxide
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 20 residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $1,607,500
Probable cause: Broken rail

Date: 06-07-97
Location: St. Albans, West Virginia
Railroad: CSX
Type of hazmat: Sulfuric Acid
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 150 residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $851,952
Probable cause: Operation failure by locomotive engineer

Date: 07-12-97
Location: Lawrenceville, Illinois
Railroad: CSX
Type of hazmat: Acrylate, Inhabited
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 6 Residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $130,000
Probable cause: Shifted load which was not properly secured
                     improvements to hazmat program
    Question. What improvements to FRA's hazmat program have been made 
since last year.
    Answer. During the past year, all FRA and State hazardous materials 
(hazmat) inspectors received training to educate and update skills on 
new hazmat rules published by the Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA). In addition, hazmat seminars were presented to 
all Federal and State inspectors at FRA's annual multi-regional 
conferences. The focus of the training has been to reinforce hazmat 
inspector knowledge of computation skills for determining the allowable 
filling densities of tank cars for the various hazardous materials 
transported by rail and to update computer skills in this rapidly 
changing environment.
    In addition, FRA field forces are being alerted to recently 
published hazmat notices and rules issued by RSPA through FRA's 
Internet system. This makes important information, including effectives 
dates of notices, available to hazmat inspectors in a timely manner. 
This electronic system is being expanded to FRA's State partners.
    Finally, FRA has been leveraging its limited hazmat inspector 
resources through Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) safety 
audits of all major freight and passenger carriers. Under SACP safety 
audits, hazmat inspectors, look for systemic violations involving 
hazmat exposures, which may have railroad-wide, or railroad-industry-
wide significance. Since 1993, the rate of hazmat releases per billion 
hazmat ton-miles has declined 33 percent--from 17.19 in 1993 to 11.53 
in 1996.
                 hazardous materials compliance program
    Question. Previously, FRA promised that FRA inspectors would direct 
adequate focus on high risk hazmat shippers. How is this now done? How 
are high risk shippers identified?
    Answer. FRA uses an Annual Allocation Analysis Model (AAAM), which 
aids in field inspection focus on high risk hazmat rail movements. The 
model data is arranged by inspection discipline, region, and railroad. 
Railroads are divided into three class size groupings: large railroads 
with annual employee hours greater than 400,000, small railroads with 
total train miles times annual employee hours greater than 100 million, 
and small railroads with total train miles times annual employee hours 
less than 100 million.
    For large railroads, AAAM uses seven risk factors: inspection 
reports, accidents, fatalities and serious injuries, hazardous material 
tons, total tons, passenger traffic, and inspection defects. AAAM also 
uses seven risk factors for both categories of small railroads. 
Hazardous material tons and total tons are obtained from the Surface 
Transportation Board's Carload Waybill Sample. However, the Carload 
Waybill Sample of railroad freight traffic does not accurately track 
hazardous material traffic flows on small railroads. Consequently, 
``train miles'' and ``annual employee hours'' are substituted for 
``hazardous material tons,'' and ``total tons.'' AAAM is a model of 
reasonable risk factors, which can suggest the need for site specific 
examinations, or suggest an area for examination under Safety Assurance 
and Compliance Program (SACP) safety audits.
    Nearing completion is another model, which contains risk factors 
that will help identify and focus FRA's attention on high-risk hazmat 
shippers.
                       inspector training program
    Question. Please provide information on the success of the 
inspector trainee program and the retention rate for all individuals 
who have entered this program since its inception. How many individuals 
who entered the inspector trainee program now serve as FRA inspectors 
in the field? How much of the fiscal year 1999 request pertains to this 
program? Please compare this amount with amounts spent during each of 
the preceding three years.
    Answer. The FRA Inspector Trainee Program has been very successful. 
The inspector trainees have brought new and creative thinking to 
complex safety issues with their varied and exceptional educational 
backgrounds. Significant benefits have been gained by the public and 
the railroad industry as the trainees become a part of FRA's inspector 
work force. The input from the trainees has been significant in helping 
to bring FRA's inspector program to a fact-based cooperative approach 
to safety.
    Since the inception of the FRA inspector trainee program in fiscal 
year 1991, the retention rate has fallen within the range of 88 percent 
in fiscal year 1997, to 97 percent in both fiscal year 1993 and fiscal 
year 1996.
    FRA's inspection work force includes 29 safety inspectors who were 
initially hired through the FRA Trainee Program. Another employee who 
came on board as a trainee works in FRA's Office of Safety 
Headquarters. Currently, there are 7 employees in the trainee program.
    The fiscal year 1999 request includes $1.206 million to continue 
this program. The budgeted amount for fiscal year 1998 is $1.191 
million, for fiscal year 1997 it was $1.826 million, and for fiscal 
year 1996 it was $1.734 million.
                            training budget
    Question. Please prepare a chart of your training budget for each 
of the last four fiscal years (including the fiscal year 1999 request), 
specifying separately the amounts spent on Federal and State 
inspectors.
    Answer.

                                            FEDERAL TRAINING PROGRAM
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Fiscal year--
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            1998         1999
                                                              1996 actual  1997 actual    estimate     estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Inspectors............................................         $210         $240         $247         $260
Federal Inspectors..........................................        1,310        1,484        1,372        1,520
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total Budget..........................................        1,520        1,724        1,619        1,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     fiscal year 1999 atip funding
    Question. Please provide a detailed break-out of the $2,500,000 
ATIP request for fiscal year 1999. Is FRA's effort to replace the T-10 
track geometry inspection vehicle now complete? If not, please provide 
a cost schedule for the completion of this replacement project.
    Answer. FRA's new track geometry car is scheduled to begin service 
in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. The $2.5 million ATIP 
request for fiscal year 1999 consists of: $1.7 million for normal, 
annual program operating expenses involving the existing T-10 track 
geometry car; $0.4 million for the Miscellaneous Obligation Account, 
which covers daily operating expenses on individual railroad 
properties, T-10 fuel suppliers, and emergency repairs; $0.372 million 
for the operation of the new track geometry car in the last quarter of 
fiscal year 1999; and $0.028 million for inflation adjustments.
                     use of atip in safety program
    Question. Please explain how FRA has incorporated data produced 
through the ATIP program into its overall strategy of ensuring the 
safety of the nation's railroad systems.
    Answer. ATIP provides a cost-effective means of examining over 
27,000 miles of track per year to ensure compliance with the Federal 
Track Safety Standards (FTSS) with primary focus on lines that carry 
passengers and hazardous materials. The FTSS are undergoing revision, 
which will likely place greater emphasis on automated inspections 
rather than manual, visual inspections. Also, within the next few 
years, passenger trains will be operated at speeds well above current 
speeds. FRA must be able to monitor compliance with high-speed track 
standards. FRA's track geometry car measures track geometry at an 
interval of once per foot under loaded conditions and at track speed. 
An onboard FRA inspector and railroad representative use the results of 
the inspection--data charts and reports--to assess track conditions. 
ATIP was initiated at a time when the railroad industry was 
experiencing a dramatic increase in track related accidents. The 
introduction of FRA's track geometry car, along with the increase in 
field inspectors armed with the data provided from this source, made a 
clear improvement in the accident rate. ATIP provides not only a means 
of detecting geometry defects and helps direct critical repair to 
prevent track-related accidents, but it also provides a means for the 
FRA inspectors to plan inspections based on historical trends. Routes 
followed by FRA's track geometry car during its annual tour through the 
country are jointly developed yearly by Headquarters and Regional 
personnel and are set up to include tracks over which large volumes of 
hazardous materials move, Amtrak passenger trains are scheduled, 
Department of Energy nuclear wastes are transported and over tracks, 
which have exhibited a higher than normal recent history of track 
related derailments. Qualitative data, produced by the track geometry 
car from these high risk sources for track, enable Federal and State 
safety inspectors promptly recognize the most severe track defects and 
to arrange for railroad maintenance of way and structures personnel to 
make expeditious repairs.
                             atip and sacp
    Question. How does the ATIP relate to SACP?
    Answer. Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) safety 
audits are data-driven. SACP safety audits identify systemic problems 
that may have railroad-wide, or railroad-industry-wide implications. 
Data generated by FRA's track geometry car, one of only two vehicles 
that have the capability of evaluating railroad track for compliance 
with Federal Track Safety Standards, figures prominently in SACP safety 
audits dealing with track condition evaluations. Furthermore, if track 
condition remedial actions, under SACP, require a railroad to submit a 
Safety Action Plan, FRA's track geometry car can evaluate the 
effectiveness of the railroad's corrective actions on subsequent 
visits.
                      grade crossing data by state
    Question. In the three full calendar years since the implementation 
of this multi-modal, coordinated plan--1995, 1996, and 1997--what has 
been the actual and percentage decrease of crossing accidents and 
fatalities nationally? Please display these data in a state-by-state 
breakout table. Is the action plan on target to meet the goal of 
reducing accidents and fatalities by 50 percent in 10 years?
    Answer. The Action Plan is on target, and the goal of reducing 
collisions and fatalities by 50 percent in 10 years (compared to 1993) 
is achievable. Data for 1995, 1996 and preliminary* data for 1997 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Collisions                            Fatalities
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                State                                            Pct. chg.                             Pct. chg.
                                        1995     1996     1997   95 vs. 97    1995     1996     1997   95 vs. 97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATION..............................    4,633    4,257    3,766      -18.7      579      488      445      -23.1
Alabama.............................      178      157      135       24.2       16       18       18      +12.5
Alaska..............................        3        6        5      +66.7  .......  .......        1       +100
Arizona.............................       38       30       26      -31.6        2        4        5       +150
Arkansas............................      161      145      114      -29.2       22       20       10      -54.5
California..........................      200      201      137      -31.5       28       24        2      -28.6
Colorado............................       59       33       26      -55.9       11        5        2      -81.8
Connecticut.........................        6       12        6  .........        1  .......  .......       -100
Delaware............................        5        4        4      -20.0  .......  .......        1       +100
District of Columbia................  .......        2  .......  .........  .......  .......  .......  .........
Florida.............................       95      102       87       -8.4       23       16       11      -52.2
Georgia.............................      160      155      138      -13.8       17       19       12      -29.4
Idaho...............................       34       49       28      -17.6        7        6        6      -14.3
Illinois............................      295      232      210      -28.8       48       39       27      -43.8
Indiana.............................      271      224      226      -16.6       29       28       25      -13.8
Iowa................................      123      123      104      -15.4        9        8       12      +33.3
Kansas..............................      101      113      101  .........       15       13       15  .........
Kentucky............................      103       77       66      -35.9        7        3        5      -28.6
Louisiana...........................      223      231      196      -12.1       28       31       29       +3.6
Maine...............................       11        8       11  .........  .......  .......  .......  .........
Maryland............................       12       10       17      +41.7  .......  .......  .......  .........
Massachusetts.......................       14       22       15       +7.1        1        0        2       +100
Michigan............................      133      142      150      +12.8        5       17       14       +180
Minnesota...........................      152      157      115      -24.3       19       14        7      -63.2
Mississippi.........................      159      132      147       -7.6       31       15       17      -45.2
Missouri............................      128      127      107      -16.4       22       19       14      -36.4
Montana.............................       19       34       31      +63.2        4        3        1      -75.0
Nebraska............................       86       63       67      -22.1        8        9        9      +12.5
Nevada..............................        8        7  .......       -100        5        1  .......       -100
New Hampshire.......................        5        2        2      -60.0  .......        1  .......  .........
New Jersey..........................       24       31       34      +41.7        5        2        7      +40.0
New Mexico..........................       18       26       20      +11.1        5        7        6      +20.0
New York............................       52       36       36      -30.8        9        4        7      -22.2
North Carolina......................      135      123      113      -16.3       11        9        6      -45.5
North Dakota........................       38       33       21      -44.7        7        4        1      -85.7
Ohio................................      239      186      176      -26.4       36       14       24      -33.3
Oklahoma............................      113       80      114       +0.9       15       22       22      +46.7
Oregon..............................       35       43       31      -11.4       12        1        4      -66.7
Pennsylvania........................       80       74       65      -18.8       12        3        4      -66.7
Rhode Island........................        1  .......        1  .........  .......  .......  .......  .........
South Carolina......................      111       87       74      -33.3        6        6       13     +116.7
South Dakota........................       41       20       23      -43.9        4        2  .......       -100
Tennessee...........................      101      123       88      -12.9       13        9       12       -7.7
Texas...............................      474      434      406      -14.3       55       61       52       -5.5
Utah................................       33       35       24      -27.3        7       11        3      -57.1
Vermont.............................        4        6        1      -75.0  .......        1  .......  .........
Virginia............................       76       70       52      -31.6        6        4        2      -66.7
Washington..........................       83       69       65      -21.7        4        6        7      +75.0
West Virginia.......................       40       22       26      -35.0        1        2        5       +400
Wisconsin...........................      140      150      117      -16.4       13        5        6      -53.8
Wyoming.............................       13        9        7      -46.2  .......        2        1       +100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   status of highway-rail action plan
    Question. Please update the Committee on the implementation of each 
of the 52 crossing safety proposals in the Highway-Rail Crossing Action 
Plan. Which of these actions have been the most effective in reducing 
accidents at highway-rail crossings?
    Answer. Effectiveness in the last four years has been much more 
attributable to the synergism of the 1994 Action Plan than to any one 
of the 55 individual initiatives. The fact that the four surface modal 
administrations worked together assembling this Action Plan, and that 
the Department (and the Congress) have since been tracking progress of 
each of the 55 initiatives has kept crossing programs high on the 
agendas of program planners in Federal as well as State and industry 
offices. Twenty of the original 55 initiatives are considered complete. 
Another dozen are now considered to be on-going programs. Nineteen are 
still being developed, and four have been terminated. (The following 
table applies.) The tragic 1995 school bus--commuter train collision in 
Fox River Grove, Illinois and the subsequent DOT Task Force and two 
reports have kept the attention of both the public and of public 
planners. The existence of the Action Plan, and the 55 initiatives, has 
provided focus and outlets and has facilitated much of this interest 
and activity. (Other factors contributing to the overall improvement in 
safety at highway-rail crossings would include Operation Lifesaver, 
continuation of the Section 130 Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Safety 
Improvement Program, FRA's eight Regional Highway-Rail Crossing Safety 
and Trespass Prevention Program Managers, additional alerting lights on 
locomotives and widespread debate over train horns. All of these have 
kept the crossing safety issue before the public and in the minds of 
public officials.

                                                        SUMMARY STATUS OF ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Initiative number/title               Agency                       Description                             Status (a/o March 19,1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  COMPLETED INITIATIVES
 
I.D., Rules of Evidence..........  FRA TRB..............  Research state laws, draft  model.....  Complete. NCHRP Legal Research Digest, ``Photographic
                                                                                                   Traffic Law Enforcement,'' published Dec. 96.
I.F., Compilation of State Laws    FRA..................  Update 1983 edition...................  Complete and distributed August 1995.
 and Regulations on Matters
 Affecting Highway-Rail Crossings.
II.A., Principal Railroad Lines..  FRA..................  Corridor reviews along defined heavy-   Complete. PRL's defined; maps provided; reviews
                                                           use rail lines.                         encouraged.
II.F.1., Cash Payments...........  Legislation..........  Allow payment of STP funds to           Included in DOT's fiscal year 1997 Appropriations
                                                           communities closing crossings.          Bill. Field guidance released Dec. 2, '96.
II.F.2., Eligibility for 100       Legislation..........  Include closure projects in those       Included in DOT's fiscal year 1997 Appropriations
 Percent Federal Funding.                                  eligible for 100 percent funding.       Bill. Field guidance released Dec. 2, '96.
II.H., Integrated Intermodal       FRA FHWA.............  Outreach meetings with MPO's and        Complete. Nine symposiums held in TX, CO, PA, MO, MA,
 Transportation Planning.                                  railroads.                              WA, CA, GA & IL.
II.I., Check List................  FHWA FRA.............  Detail procedure for corridor reviews.  Complete and distributed to FHWA and FRA field offices
                                                                                                   in May 95.
II.M., Distribution of Funds.....  FHWA FRA.............  Propose revised distribution formula    Proposed in NEXTEA.
                                                           for 130 funds.
III.D.1., On-Guard Notice........  FHWA.................  Publish a notice re crossing safety...  Complete. Distributed Feb 94. Another re high-profile
                                                                                                   crossings sent Feb. 96.
III.D.2., Advisory Bulletin......  FHWA.................  Bulletin to trade press re crossing     Complete. Sent Feb 94.
                                                           safety.
III.D.3., Public Service Print     FHWA.................  Develop and distribute print ads to     Complete. Sent Jan. 94.
 Advertisements.                                           trade press.
V.A.1., Research Workshop........  FRA..................  Discuss current and projected research  Complete. Held April 95. Report issued.
                                                           needs.
V.A.2., Defense Conversion Fair..  FRA..................  Exchange program to introduce Defense   Complete. Part of DOT Technology Fair and in BAA
                                                           firms to industry needs.                seeking proposals.
V.B., Demographics...............  NHTSA................  Study fatal casualty statistics.......  Complete. Report published Nov 94.
V.C., Accident Severity..........  NHTSA................  Study accident severity statistics....  Complete Feb 95, unpublished memo rpt.
V.D.4., Locomotive Conspicuity...  FRA..................  Develop standards and rules for         Complete. Regs require all locomotives be equipped by
                                                           alerting lights on locomotives.         Dec 97. Waivers granted to UP & SEPTA for 3 & 6 mos
                                                                                                   respectively.
VI.B., Trespasser Casualty         FRA..................  Propose to collect additional data re   Complete. New reporting requirement effective January
 Reporting.                                                trespass casualties.                    1997.
VI.C., Workshop on Trespass        FRA..................  Plan and host second national workshop  Completed in Atlanta, Nov 95. Five regional workshops
 Prevention.                                                                                       completed Apr 96.
VI.D., Regional Campaigns........  FRA..................  Develop low-cost PSA re trespass        Complete. Final product delivered Summer 96.
                                                           casualties.
VI.E., Model Trespass Prevention   FRA..................  Develop from current state laws a       Complete. Compilation of state laws and model code
 Code.                                                     model trespass prevention law.          sent to Congress in April `97.
 
                                                                  ON-GOING INITIATIVES
 
I.A., Section 402 Funds..........  NHTSA FHWA...........  Promote state funding of related        On-going. In fiscal year 1997, 15 states dedicated
                                                           projects.                               $346,661.
I.B., Police Officer Detail......  NHTSA FRA............  Officer in Washington to assist FRA     On-going. 3rd officer selected and on-board.
                                                           outreach.
I.C., Outreach to Judiciary......  NHTSA FRA............  Publish articles in NTLC newsletter...  On-going. Two columns published by NTLC, presentation
                                                                                                   made to Traffic Court Judges' Seminar; reviewing
                                                                                                   draft pamphlet.
II.B., The National Highway        FHWA.................  States to plan upgrade or elimination   On-going. ``Continued safety improvements'' in OST
 System (NHS).                                             of NHS crossings.                       Strategic Assessment Plan. FHWA encouraging inclusion
                                                                                                   in state planning processes.
II.C., Upgrade Signing and         FHWA.................  Improve conspicuity of signs and        On-going. FHWA memo Dec. 94 encourages promotion of
 Marking.                                                  markings at crossings.                  higher quality material.
II.E., STOP Signs................  FHWA FRA.............  Promote STOP signs as traffic control   On-going. July 93 memo to FHWA and FRA field offices
                                                           device alternative.                     and regional meetings are promoting.
III.A., Marketing Materials Plan.  FRA NHTSA FHWA FTA...  Develop materials and promote           On-going. Always Expect A Traincampaign on-going. Most
                                                           increased public awareness.             recent release: A Trespass Prevention VNR.
III.D.4., ``Trucker on the         FHWA FRA.............  w/ATA & OLI host trucking executives    On-going. ``Kick-off'' was Nov 94. Safety roundtable w/
 Train'' Program.                                          on locomotives.                         rail & truck industry planned for Spring '98.
III.D.5., Operation Lifesaver....  FHWA OLI.............  Encourage OL to meet with trucking      On-going.
                                                           companies.
III.D.6., National Safety          FHWA.................  Discuss issue with industry and law     On-going. Pamphlets published by NSC in Mar 95 and Sep
 Organizations.                                            enforcement officials.                  97. Video by OLI in '96.
III.D.7., On-Site Compliance       FHWA.................  During reviews, inform carriers of      On-going. Dec 94 memo encourages discussion and
 Reviews.                                                  risks at crossings.                     distribution of materials.
V.G., Light Rail Accident          FTA..................  Broaden SAMIS system to identify        On-going. Data collection started in fiscal year 1995.
 Statistics.                                               crossing accidents.                     Published in `95 SAMIS Annual Rpt.
 
                                                                 IN-PROGRESS INITIATIVES
 
I.E., Commercial Driver's License  FHWA AAMVA...........  Elevate crossing violation to           Required by 1995 legislation; NPRM issued March 2,
                                                           ``serious'' for CDL holders.            1998.
I.G., Safety Inquiry.............  FRA..................  Informal meeting re standing rail       Pending time and resources. (BNSF has proscribe such
                                                           equipment near crossings.               practice.)
II.D., Responsibilities for        FRA FHWA.............  Clarify project responsibilities,       Regulatory action terminated Aug. '97. Considering
 Selection and Installation.                               railroad vs. highway authorities.       warrants as an alternative.
II.G., Crossing Consolidation and  FRA..................  Publish guidelines and strategies       First report, a Guide, published July 94. Second
 Closure Case Studies.                                     based on case studies.                  report, Options, in draft.
II.J., Highway-Rail Crossing       FHWA.................  Update and republish 1986 version.....  Contractor progressing. Preliminary draft material
 Handbook.                                                                                         received. Target date Sep. '98.
II.K., Vegetation Clearance......  FRA FHWA.............  Address in proposed track standards     FHWA encourages states. A joint FHWA-FRA working group
                                                           and SMS.                                is being formed.
III.B., Driver Training Materials  NHTSA AAMVA..........  Review current and develop new          New model drivers' manual prepared with section on
                                                           materials.                              crossings. Will be piloted in several states.
                                                                                                   Colorado has adopted.
IV.A., Define Categories.........  FRA..................  Define categories and minimum           Statistics and comments from previous safety inquiry
                                                           standards for private crossings.        are being reviewed.
IV.B., Safety Inquiry............  FRA..................  Informal meeting re standards for       Pending time and resources.
                                                           certain private crossings.
IV.C., Locked Gate at Private      FRA FHWA.............  Demonstrate gates w/controlled locks    NY & OR studying. Demonstrations being planned in both
 Crossings.                                                at private crossings.                   states.
V.D.1., Signs and Signals........  FHWA FRA.............  Research new traffic control and        Contractor is progressing. Final report due April
                                                           warning devices.                        1998.
V.D.2., Train Horns..............  FRA AAR..............  Determine impact of whistle bans        Report published Apr 95. Revision being reviewed.
                                                           nationwide.                             Draft assessment of wayside horns under review.
V.D.3., Light Rail Crossing Gates  FTA..................  Investigate alternatives for left turn  LACMTA demonstration of 4-quadrant gates is
 for Left Turn Lanes.                                      lanes with parallel tracks.             progressing. Final Report is due March 1998.
V.D.5., The Manual on Uniform      FHWA FTA FRA.........  Propose changes re high speed rail,     Published in Federal Register June 95. FHWA decision
 Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).                          temporary closure, multi-track signs,   published Jan 97, ``More study necessary.'' Research
                                                           work zones, etc.                        being proposed
V.E.1., Automated Video Image      FRA..................  Investigate potential for live video    Tests in NY and CA. Proposals being sought through
 Analysis.                                                 monitoring of crossings.                IDEA program.
V.F., 1-800 Computer Answering     FRA..................  Develop system for answering and        Funding identified, concept under review as railroads
 System.                                                   forwarding of trouble calls.            have progressed unilaterally.
V.H., Resource Allocation          FRA..................  Recalculate accident prediction         Peer review of CHAID procedure mixed. Contract for
 Procedure.                                                formulas and rebuild model.             update of current formula let.
V.I., The Inventory..............  FRA FHWA.............  Promote updating; hold safety inquiry   FHWA memo promotes updating; New Update Manual
                                                           re display of number.                   published Dec 96. Inquiry pending time and resources.
VI.A., Demographic Survey........  FRA..................  Review trespass fatal statistics to     Zip code maps available. Review of '97 data initiated.
                                                           focus remedial efforts.
 
                                                                 TERMINATED INITIATIVES
 
II.L., Corridor Review             Legislation..........  Establish an STP incentive program for  DOT bill offered but not considered.
 Participation.                                            corridor reviews.
III.C., National and Community     FRA..................  Support OL State Coordinators with      Americorps funding not sufficient to include this
 Service.                                                  Service Trust Act of 93.                program. No further action.
III.E., Operation Lifesaver        Legislation..........  Propose increased funds to OLI with     1994 DOT bill not considered. FRA's fiscal year 1996
 Matching Funds.                                           non-public match required.              grant to OLI increased to $300,000. Fiscal year 1997
                                                                                                   DOT Appropriation Bill increases to $600,000. NEXTEA
                                                                                                   proposes $300,000 annually.
V.E.2., Radar Actuation System     FTA..................  Evaluate/demonstrate feasibility of     Administrative/contract difficulties led to
 for Light Rail Crossing Warning                           radar-based system to detect trains     termination. Substitute project is assessing crossing
 Devices.                                                  and approach speed.                     standards, using video tech, on MBTA's new Old Colony
                                                                                                   Line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              fiscal year 1998 earmark for grade crossings
    Question. In the fiscal year 1998 transportation appropriations 
bill, the conferees provided $275,000 to support new and additional 
highway/rail grade crossing safety initiatives. Please explain how the 
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has utilized this funding to:
    (a) evaluate interstate rail corridor and crossing safety,
    (b) identify most dangerous crossings,
    (c) mitigate crossing hazards,
    (d) assess the effectiveness of the crossing signal technologies,
    (e) develop safer commercial driving practices at highway/rail 
crossings, and
    (f) work with communities seeking reduction of train whistles.
    Answer. FRA plans to apply these new funds as follows: Over half 
the funds, $145,000, will be used to assess the impact of train 
whistles on communities and the effectiveness of mitigating 
technologies along the rail corridors which will be impacted by train 
horns (items a, c, d and f above). Additional funds, $54,000, will be 
used in public awareness and outreach programs in cooperation with 
FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers. The work will include outreach to 
commercial drivers (item e above), corridor and community reviews to 
improve crossing safety and prevent trespassing (item a above), and 
community work on mitigating safety measures vis-a-vis train horns 
(item f above). Another portion of these funds, $25,000 will be used to 
update collision prediction and hazard ranking software used by 
Federal, State, community, and railroad analysts to identify most 
dangerous crossings (item b above). Finally, $51,000 of these funds 
will be used to augment FRA's outreach to law enforcement officials 
promoting their active involvement in crossing safety and trespass 
prevention efforts within their communities (items a, c and e above).
             fiscal year 1997-1998 grade crossing projects
    Question. Please show on a project by project basis how the fiscal 
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 monies on grade crossings were spent, 
who the recipients of the funds were, and the expected results.
    Answer. The information follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                Project                 --------------------------------                 Recipient                                                Expected results
                                          1997 funding    1998 funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Development (RDV).........      $2,020,000      $1,997,000
                                        --------------------------------
    Locomotive Conspic.................           5,000  ..............  Volpe Ctr................................  Locomotives and freight cars will be more visible to drivers, helping them
    Freight Car Reflec.................          25,000          10,000  Volpe Ctr                                   avoid striking the train.
    Eval Wayside Horns.................          12,000          15,000  Volpe Ctr................................  Locomotive horns will be optimized for sound quality and effectiveness while
    Optml Acoustic Warn................          20,000          60,000  Volpe Ctr                                   reducing noise pollution in surrounding communities.
    Driver Behavior....................          65,000         100,000  Volpe Ctr................................  To gain a better understanding of how drivers react to grade crossings and
    Accident Causation.................         124,000         150,000  Volpe Ctr                                   why accidents happen in order to educate drivers and develop new warning
    Driver Education...................         134,000          70,000  Volpe Ctr                                   devices.
    Operation Lifesaver................         600,000         600,000  Operation Lifesaver, Inc.................  Public education about the laws regarding grade crossing, the dangers at
                                                                                                                     grade crossings and the importance to obey traffic laws.
    Loss of Shunt......................         300,000         250,000  Assoc. of American Railroads.............  Examine causes for loss of contact between rail and wheels, resulting in
                                                                                                                     intermittent operation of grade crossing warning device (gate bobble).
    Illumination Guidelines............          25,000          35,000  Volpe Ctr................................  The use of street lights to illuminate trains at night so drivers can see
                                                                                                                     and avoid running into the train.
    Assess Passive Sys.................          20,000  ..............  Volpe Ctr................................  Assess the Ohio crossbuck and traffic signals at crossing to improve warning
    Assess Highway Sig.................          10,000  ..............  Volpe Ctr                                   to drivers.
    Photo Enforcement..................           5,000          25,000  Volpe Ctr
    Active Device Fail.................          25,000  ..............  Volpe Ctr................................  Analyze the data from the failures of automatic warning devices and
                                                                                                                     recommend improvements to increase device reliability.
    HSR Crossing Tech..................         340,000  ..............  Volpe Ctr/Battelle Labs..................  Examined signaling and train control, obstruction detection and warning
                                                                                                                     devices and barrier system technologies available for use in high-speed
                                                                                                                     corridors. Methodology to evaluate improved safety provided by additional
                                                                                                                     devices developed.
    Crossing Problem Definition........          10,000  ..............  ASTI.....................................  Examined the crossing problems in five designated high-speed corridors and
                                                                                                                     recommended solutions.
    Assess 1010 & 1036 Demos...........         150,000          70,000  Volpe Ctr................................  Evaluate the technology demonstration projects funded under the Section 1010
                                                                                                                     & 1036 program in ISTEA (4-quad gate with obstruction detection in CT and
                                                                                                                     Vehicle Arrestor Barrier in IL).
    Obstacle/Intrusion Detection.......         150,000  ..............  Volpe Ctr................................  Building on the HSR Crossing Technology project, examine the obstruction
                                                                                                                     detection systems suitable for use at grade crossings and expand for use
                                                                                                                     along the right-of-way.
    Compendium of Volpe Research         ..............         200,000  Volpe Ctr................................  A new project to assemble the research gs to date.
     Findings.
    Overview & synthesis of existing     ..............         160,000  Volpe Ctr................................  A new examination of available grade crossing statistics to develop a better
     grade crossing statics.                                                                                         understanding why grade crossing accidents occur.
    Volpe Center Support...............  ..............         177,000  Volpe Ctr................................  Support of assessing hazard elimination projects.
                                                                 75,000  Volpe Ctr................................  Corridor Risk Analysis for Empire Corridor.
                                        ================================
Next Generation High Speed Rail........       2,965,400       2,500,000
                                        --------------------------------
    NC Sealed Corridor.................       2,000,000       2,000,000  NCDOT....................................  The North Carolina Sealed Corridor Initiative will treat every crossing in
                                                                                                                     the 92-mile Charlotte to Greensboro segment of the high-speed rail corridor
                                                                                                                     with innovative crossing devices like median barriers, long gate arms, and
                                                                                                                     4-quad gates. Redundant crossings will be closed.
    NY Locked Gate.....................         215,400  ..............  NYSDOT...................................  The Locked Gate at Private Crossings project will design, fabricate, test
                                                                                                                     and evaluate a low-cost grade crossing gate system suitable for low volume
                                                                                                                     traffic crossings on high-speed corridors.
    TRB IDEA Program...................         500,000         500,000  TRB......................................  The TRB IDEA Program, supported by FRA, FHWA, NHTSA, and FTA, competitively
                                                                                                                     solicits concepts, conducts peer review, and awards innovative technology
                                                                                                                     projects nationwide. Examples of completed projects include a very wide
                                                                                                                     field of view camera suitable for automated monitoring of grade crossings
                                                                                                                     and a scanning radar antenna for surveillance systems.
    ITS Architecture & Support to ITS           100,000  ..............  ITS JPO..................................  The ITS Architecture is gaining a new User Service--User Service #30--which
     PO.                                                                                                             describes how grade crossing will be incorporated into the overall
                                                                                                                     Intelligent Transportation System and which will link train control systems
                                                                                                                     with advanced highway traffic control systems.
    Volpe Center Support...............         150,000  ..............  Volpe Ctr................................  Support of assessing hazard elimination projects.
                                                                                                                    Corridor Risk Analysis for Empire Corridor.
                                        ================================
Office of Safety.......................         477,600         749,000
                                        --------------------------------
    Public Awareness and Outreach......          39,300          94,000  Fiscal year 1997, various printing         Promotional and audio-visual materials, conference registrations and display
                                                                          contractors, packing and shipping firms,   booth space and supplies, for use or distribution when making presentations
                                                                          equipment rental firms, conference         to schools, community groups, workshops, conventions, etc. In fiscal year
                                                                          organizers, OL suppliers, etc.             1998, a targeted effort will focus on the trucking industry.
    Police Officer Detail..............          50,000          63,000  Washington State ($50K for fiscal year     The police officer detail is an outreach program with the law enforcement
                                                                          1997, $9K for fiscal year 1998) fiscal     community to raise awareness of crossing safety and trespass prevention.
                                                                          year 1998 selection has not yet been
                                                                          made.
    Outreach to Law Enforcement........          19,300          70,000  IACP, NSA, NFOP, etc. fiscal year 1998     Outreach to judges and prosecutors to enhance their knowledge of crossing
                                                                          will begin a new effort to detail          safety and trespass prevention issues, and defray convention fees and
                                                                          officers to FRA Regional Offices part-     materials support for FRA's regional manager promotions of highway-rail
                                                                          time. Selections have not yet been made.   crossing safety and trespass prevention programs.
    Analysis of High-Profile Crossings.          18,000          20,000  Univ. of West Virginia and local survey    Research and analysis of problems associated with and alternatives for, high-
                                                                          firms.                                     profile crossings and low-clearance vehicles.
    Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory &            55,000          83,000  AMB......................................  Simplify and refine the Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory and collision data
     Data Bases.                                                                                                     bases reporting and report production procedures.
    Information Processing.............         266,000         274,000  AMB......................................  Supports Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory and crossing module of the Accident/
                                                                                                                     Incident Report Processing.
    Regulatory Support.................          30,000         145,000  Fiscal year 1997, Argonne National Labs;   Fiscal year 1997, assisted in economic analysis of train horn ban impact;
                                                                          fiscal year 1998, DeLeuw Cather.           fiscal year 1998, assistance in preparation of EIS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these projects, two efforts are underway paid for 
with FHWA funds:
    Vehicle Proximity Alert System, with $1 million from FHWA ITS 
program (fiscal year 1994 $600 thousand & fiscal year 1995 $400 
thousand) awarded to the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, 
Colorado ($500 thousand) and Volpe Center ($500 thousand). VPAS is an 
in-vehicle warning system that alerts motor vehicle drivers of the 
approach of a train, giving them adequate time to stop. The reliability 
testing of the prototypes has been completed and the Evaluation Report 
is scheduled for completion by May, 1998.
    Long Island Railroad Intelligent Grade Crossing, with $7.625 
million from FHWA and $3.175 million from General Railway Signal (GRS). 
This project will connect the GRS Atlas train control system with the 
grade crossing warning system and local highway traffic control system 
to enable crossing gates to remain up for trains that will be stopping 
at stations just before a crossing. Before departing, the locomotive 
engineer will activate the warning lights and gates. This will minimize 
motor vehicle delay while improving safety. A simulation at the site 
will take place in the Fall, 1998 followed by the demonstration which 
is scheduled to begin by November, 1998.
              fiscal year 1998-1999 grade crossing funding
    Question. Please list all highway/rail grade crossing safety 
programs in the FRA budget (i.e., research and development, next 
generation high-speed rail, safety), and compare funding for each 
initiative for the fiscal year 1998 enacted amount to the fiscal year 
1999 request. If the total funding is less than that in fiscal year 
1998, please explain why.
    Answer. The following table applies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year--
                 Program                 -------------------------------
                                               1998            1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Research and Development:
    Equipment, Operations and Hazardous         $435,000        $435,000
     Materials..........................
    Track and Vehicle-Track Interaction.         562,000     \1\ 100,000
    Safety of High-Speed Ground                  400,000         400,000
     Transportation.....................
    Operation Lifesaver.................         600,000         ( \2\ )
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, R&D.....................       1,997,000         935,000
                                         ===============================
Next Generation High-Speed Rail: Grade         2,500,000       2,900,000
 Crossing Hazards and Innovative
 Technologies...........................
                                         ===============================
Office of Safety:
    Police Officer Detail...............          63,000      \3\ 60,000
    Outreach to judges, prosecutors, law          70,000         115,000
     enforcement and the public.........
    Analysis of High-Profile (Hump)               20,000          25,000
     Crossing Problem...................
    Information Processing..............         357,000     \4\ 362,000
    Regulatory Support..................         145,000     \5\ 100,000
    Public Awareness and Outreach.......          94,000          95,000
Operation Lifesaver                              ( \6\ )     \7\ 300,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Safety..................         749,000       1,057,000
                                         ===============================
      Total FRA.........................       5,246,000       4,892,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Program management (and funding) were moved from the `Track' program
  to the Next Generation High-Speed Rail program. As well, ``Track''
  funded ``loss-of-shunt'' study was nearly completed in fiscal year
  1998 with a much lower level of effort anticipated in fiscal year
  1999.
\2\ See Safety below.
\3\ It may be necessary to fund five calendar quarters of the police
  officer detail from fiscal year 1998. The fiscal year 1999 amount
  reflects just four quarters and anticipated cost increases.
\4\ Major revisions to Inventory and prediction software are being
  initiated in fiscal year 1998 which will continue into fiscal year
  1999 at a lower level of effort. These funds supplement FRA's Safety
  Information Processing budget.
\5\ Whistle Ban Environmental Impact Statement initiated in fiscal year
  1998 will be near completion and will require fewer resources in
  fiscal year 1999.
\6\ See R&D above.
\7\ FRA believes that $300,000 is adequate for the Operation Lifesaver
  program. Fiscal year 1998 included Congressional earmarks.

       top 10 states--highest number of grade crossing accidents
    Question. Please list the ``top ten'' states that have the highest 
number of highway/rail grade crossing accidents and fatalities, and 
cite the number of accidents and fatalities in calendar years 1996, 
1997 and thus far in 1998.
    Answer. No data for 1998 has as yet been processed. The ten states 
with the most reported collisions and fatalities in 1996 and 1997 are 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                      1996     1997 \1\    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collisions:
    Texas..............................        434        406        840
    Indiana............................        224        226        450
    Illinois...........................        232        210        442
    Louisiana..........................        231        196        427
    Ohio...............................        186        176        362
    California.........................        201        137        338
    Georgia............................        155        138        293
    Alabama............................        157        135        292
    Michigan...........................        142        150        292
    Mississippi........................        132        147        279
Fatalities:
    Texas..............................         61         52        113
    Illinois...........................         39         27         66
    Louisiana..........................         31         29         60
    Indiana............................         28         25         53
    California.........................         24         20         44
    Oklahoma...........................         22         22         44
    Ohio...............................         14         24         38
    Alabama............................         18         18         36
    Missouri...........................         19         14         33
    Mississippi........................         15         17         32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data is preliminary.

                     plan for reducing trespassers
    Question. What is your strategic plan for reducing the number of 
trespassers?
    Answer. Trespass prevention is FRA's most challenging issue. 
Trespass casualties increased in 1997. FRA is focusing on a multi-
faceted trespass prevention program which is summarized in three 
categories: Currently On-Going, Near-Term, and Long-Term.
Currently On-Going
    All FRA offices and other DOT agencies are being challenged to 
participate in trespass prevention programs.
    With FRA encouragement and support, Operation Lifesaver, Inc. 
(OLI), has become more involved in trespass prevention initiatives. As 
a result, last Summer and Fall, Community Trespass Prevention Guides 
were issued to all State OL Coordinators, and Trespass Prevention 
Presentation materials were distributed to all presenters and trainers 
(more than 2,500). Most recently, OLI has released and distributed a 
new 12-minute video, Byron's Last Day, for use with high school 
students. After a successful effort at the Boy Scout Jamboree last 
Summer, OLI has established considerable credibility with the Boy 
Scouts of America. Additional initiatives are being considered and 
contact has been made with the Girl Scouts.
    Both DOT's Always Expect A Train (AEAT) campaign and the 
Association of American Railroad's Highways or Dieways? campaign 
include trespass prevention. AEAT's most recent effort produced and 
widely distributed a Video News Release (VNR) focused on trespass 
prevention. AEAT also has available anti-trespass posters which are 
displayed and distributed at safety gatherings and conferences, at 
schools when visited, etc.
    FRA continues to work with the Office of the Secretary and with the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to insure that 
railroad issues, particularly crossing safety and trespass prevention, 
are part of the continuing Moving Kids Safely and Safe Communities 
programs. These programs are bringing safety awareness and local 
attention effectively to potential casualty producing locations and 
activities in communities, such as railroad rights-of-way and/or 
bridges.
    Pursuant to a Congressional mandate, the FRA has developed and 
circulated model State legislation providing penalties for vandalism of 
railroad equipment or property and for trespassing on railroad rights-
of-way. A summary of existing railroad trespass and vandalism laws was 
included. In addition to key members of Congress, the package was sent 
directly to the National Governors' Association, the Council of State 
Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National 
Association of Counties and the National Association of Regional 
Councils. FRA will continue to promote this model code at every 
opportunity. For example, FRA representatives recently appeared before 
the State of Washington's House of Representatives' Committee on 
Criminal Justice and Corrections to explain and promote adoption of a 
package patterned after the model code.
    For nearly three years, FRA has had an active duty police officer 
detailed to the Office of Safety Analysis to help with its outreach to 
law enforcement and judicial officials. These individuals have worked 
with, and advised FRA's Regional Managers on working with State and 
local law enforcement officials. This liaison officer has also 
established FRA working relationships with the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association. 
FRA also is working with the newly formed International Association of 
Railroad Police, a spin-off from the Association of American Railroads. 
All of this effort is targeted towards increasing police awareness of 
the need to enforce traffic laws at crossings and anti-trespass laws 
along rail rights-of-way.
Near-Term
    In FRA's fiscal year 1999 budget request, eight of the 32 
additional positions requested will double the number of Regional 
Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Program Managers. FRA's eight 
Regional Offices oversee rail infrastructure, operations and programs 
in four to eight States each. The Crossing and Trespass Managers, 
though effective, have been unable to meet all demands for their 
presence and time, and legitimate opportunities to promote crossing 
safety and trespass prevention opportunities have been missed. These 
eight additional positions will augment FRA's efforts and provide 
increased flexibility to work with States, local communities, 
railroads, Operation Lifesaver, Inc. and other Federal agencies (e.g., 
NHTSA, FHWA, FTA, USBP, etc.) to promote trespass prevention efforts 
and crossing safety.
    FRA has initiated an effort to demonstrate the applicability of 
intrusion detection technology to trespass prevention. Preliminary 
discussions have been held with Monroe County, New York, and Conrail 
officials. FRA currently is investigating available hardware.
    FRA currently is exploring the idea of underwriting the cost of 
detailing a local police officer part-time to each of FRA's Regional 
Offices. This officer would support and assist the Regional Manager for 
Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Programs and Operation 
Lifesaver State Coordinators in outreach efforts to local law 
enforcement agencies and to the public. Ideas to be explored include: 
Developing safety training programs for law enforcement regarding 
railroad rights-of-way, yards and other railroad property; develop 
focused campaigns for use in high-incident areas; and develop a program 
of awards and recognitions for law enforcement agencies and officers 
for outstanding law enforcement efforts in trespass prevention.
    Starting in January 1997, railroads have been reporting trespass 
casualties to FRA in an expanded format. A full year's data soon will 
be available. FRA will be analyzing this additional data and 
anticipates producing more detailed information regarding the times, 
places and activities involved, and identifying high-incident areas. 
FRA's 1997 Trespasser Bulletin will reflect this additional material.
    FRA is working with OLI and several railroad and state 
representatives to reach a consensus regarding needed additional 
information about the individuals involved in trespass incidents and 
options for collecting such demographic data. FRA hopes to produce a 
demographic study of 1997 trespass casualties.
Long-Term
    FRA will be exploring with DOT's other surface Administrations, OLI 
and the industry a follow-on to the Always Expect A Train campaign of 
1994 and 1995 with even more emphasis on trespass prevention. Ideas to 
be considered include: Media and PSA's to targeted venues such as 
journals and magazines on hiking, health, trail use, schools and 
education; and a trespass toolbox with suggested program outlines and 
sample materials and lists of available resources and contacts for 
distribution to concerned communities, industry and State officials and 
other agencies.
    During discussions with OLI and industry officials (referenced 
above), FRA will consider options for supplementing current casualty 
reporting procedures with specific demographic data related to trespass 
casualties. At the same time, FRA will open a dialogue with NHTSA and 
with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) seeking their expertise and 
assistance in developing demographic data.
    Besides current casualty reporting procedures, consideration will 
be given to tapping railroad and police files regarding trespass 
incidents (that did not result in a casualty) and railroad near-hit 
programs. A centralized, uniform data base will be considered.
    FRA is working with DOT, NHTSA, FTA and FHWA outreach programs to 
insure that anti-trespass information becomes a part of existing 
established programs such as the Partnership for a Walkable America and 
the Bicycle/Pedestrian State Coordinators program. FRA has taken the 
lead, with support from the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials and the Institute of Transportation Engineers 
(and NHTSA, FHWA and FTA), to foster development of Rails-with-Trails 
casualty prevention guidelines for consideration and use by community/
trail planners.
             status of 1996 grade crossing recommendations
    Question. What is the status of the recommendations of the 1996 
Grade Crossing Task Force report? Specifically, which recommendations 
from this report have not yet been implemented, and what are DOT's 
continuing efforts to implement these recommendations?
    Answer. The initial report of the 1996 Grade Crossing Task Force 
was published March 1, 1996, titled, ``Accidents That Shouldn't 
Happen.'' This report contained 24 short and long term recommendations 
divided into four specific problem areas: Interconnected Signals and 
Storage; High-Profile Crossings; Light-Rail Crossing Issues; and, 
Special Vehicle Operations and Information. On June 1, 1997, a follow-
up report was released, titled, ``Implementation Report of the USDOT 
Grade Crossing Safety Task Force.'' This report provided the status and 
a summary of actions taken and to be taken for each of the 24 
recommendations. All 24 recommendations have been addressed, but to 
varying degrees. A description of each, and the current status of each, 
is included in the following table.

                                                      SUMMARY STATUS OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Initiative number/title               Agency                       Description                             Status (a/o March 17, 1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         II. INTERCONNECTED SIGNALS AND STORAGE
 
II.A.1, State Focal Points.......  States...............  Establish focal point for communities   All states have designated a focal point. List
                                                           and railroads to coordinate crossing    published. Intent of FHWA/FRA to outline suggested
                                                           issues.                                 roles/responsibilities.
II.A.2, Engineering Studies......  States...............  Determine adequacy of storage space     States have completed investigations and established
                                                           and the need for signal                 data bases. FRA letter to Governors stressed
                                                           interconnections.                       importance.
II.A.3, Planning and Design......  States...............  Consider storage space needs early in   State newsletters and memoranda have stressed. Design
                                                           design or redesign phase when           manuals revised. Follow-up with AASHTO and AREA.
                                                           planning projects.
II.A.4, Regional Conferences.....  FHWA FRA.............  Initiate regional conferences for       All FHWA Regions (ex. Region 1, being planned) have
                                                           railroads and states to discuss         held conferences. Several states have hosted state
                                                           crossing safety issues.                 meetings w/RR's.
II.B.1, Technical Working Group    FHWA FRA.............  Review existing standards and           TWG convened in '96, issued report in June '97,
 (TWG).                                                    guidelines and develop new as needed.   included terminology, findings, bibliography,
                                                                                                   letters, recommendations.
 
                                                               III. HIGH-PROFILE CROSSINGS
 
III.A.1, Standard Warning Sign...  FHWA.................  Develop and approve advance warning     MUTCD amended on January 9, 1997.
                                                           sign for inclusion in MUTCD.
III.A.2, Define Information Sign.  FRA FHWA.............  Propose sample language to advise       Alternative word message signs were proposed in
                                                           proper operator action if stalled on    Implementation Report and will be included in new
                                                           crossing.                               Handbook.
III.A.3, Identify Problem          Highway Agencies.....  Identify crossings with history,        FHWA/FRA encouraging road authorities to identify and
 Crossings.                                                install signs, alert potential users,   sign crossings. Inventory changes in-progress.
                                                           update Inventory.
III.B.1, Technical Working Group   FRA FHWA.............  With States and industry, investigate   TWG confirmed feasibility. Data collection and study
 (TWG).                                                    feasibility of vehicle and crossing     of problem crossings and vehicle interaction
                                                           classifications.                        continues.
III.B.2, Track and Highway         FRA FHWA.............  Post-maintenance guidelines for         A government-industry task force polled constituents
 Maintenance.                                              vertical alignment do not exist and     and is defining need. ASLRA, AREA and AASHTO are
                                                           should be developed.                    participating.
 
                                                             IV. LIGHT-RAIL CROSSING ISSUES
 
IV.A.1, MUTCD Chapter............  FHWA.................  Adopt chapter, ``Traffic Controls for   Chapter completed by National Committee and is
                                                           Light Rail-Highway Grade Crossings''.   awaiting FHWA publication in Federal Register.
IV.A.2, Planning, Design and       FTA and local          FTA/FHWA to issue Planning Emphasis     PEA due Sep '97. FTA designated staff in each Region
 Operation.                         agencies.              Area (PEA) directive to planning        to monitor progress and results, to coordinate on
                                                           agencies.                               crossing matters.
IV.A.3, Full Funding Grant         FTA..................  Include language in all future FFGA     Consideration and evaluation of signal interconnection
 Agreements (FFGA).                                        addressing priority of light rail       now required in all FFGA's during preliminary
                                                           vehicles at crossings.                  engineering.
IV.B.1, Data Collection and        FTA TCRP.............  Develop a process to collect, analyze   FTA has published 1995 crossing data from Safety
 Dissemination.                                            and disseminate detailed light-rail     Management System. Future TCRP project will consider
                                                           collision data.                         additional need
IV.B.2, MUTCD and Handbook.......  FTA FHWA FRA.........  Insure standards and guidelines are     FTA is reviewing MUTCD for further suggestions. FHWA
                                                           consistent re light-rail crossing       is revising Handbook with FRA oversight.
                                                           issues.
IV.B.3, Priority of Light-Rail     FTA ITE..............  Develop guidelines for priority of      A TCRP Report (#17) issued January '97 developed
 Vehicles.                                                 light-rail vehicles operating on city   guidelines for priority of light-rail vehicles
                                                           streets.                                operating on city streets.
IV.B.4, Model Legislation........  FTA NGA NCSL.........  Enact and enforce penalties for         FTA is exploring options to promote enactment of model
                                                           violations associated with light-rail   legislation.
                                                           crossings.
 
                                                      V. SPECIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS AND INFORMATION
 
V.A.1, School Buses..............  States...............  School boards and contractors to        OLI has distributed awareness and training video.
                                                           include crossing emergency info in      NHTSA to include crossing issues in developing one-
                                                           dispatch books.                         day in-service seminar.
V.A.2, Operating Permits.........  States...............  Permits issued for special vehicles to  NTSB has successfully encouraged several states to
                                                           include emergency numbers for           include numbers. In some states, pamphlets with
                                                           railroads.                              permits include numbers.
V.A.3, ``Super-Load'' Vehicles...  States...............  Provide RR telephone numbers necessary  NTSB is promoting through State special permit
                                                           to arrange flag protection for          offices.
                                                           special vehicles.
V.A.4, Commercial Driver License   FHWA.................  Expand crossing safety related message  FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers is pursuing; with FRA
 (CDL) Manual and Test.                                    of both manual and tests.               is planning Safety Round Table with truck and rail
                                                                                                   industry.
V.B.1, Escort Vehicles...........  States...............  Develop certification programs,         NTSB is working with State special permit offices.
                                                           including crossing safety in training
                                                           exercises.
V.B.2, ``Real Time''               States...............  Escort and special permit vehicles to   NTSB is working with State special permit offices.
 Communications.                                           maintain contact with dispatchers.
V.B.3, Classification Process....  States...............  Implement classification process when   Pending conclusion of III.B.1 above.
                                                           developed per III.B.1 above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         grade crossing issues
    Question. Please indicate how the FRA has worked with other Federal 
agencies in reducing highway-rail grade crossing incidents. What 
coordinated efforts with other agencies are planned for fiscal year 
1999, and how is this reflected in the request?
    Answer. In 1994, DOT, along with Members of Congress, unveiled the 
Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan. The Action Plan is a 
visionary policy architecture for achieving its goal of zero tolerance 
of highway-rail crossing collisions, fatalities and injuries. It is an 
ambitious national transportation goal, but one that clearly emphasizes 
that safety is FRA's top priority.
    The multi modal endeavor brings together the valuable resources of 
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA), and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to create and 
implement innovative enforcement, engineering, education, research, 
promotional and legislative initiatives to save lives at highway-rail 
crossings and along railroad rights-of-way.
    Since the Action Plan's inception in 1994, there has been a 
significant five-year downward trend in fatalities. Between 1995 and 
1996, America achieved the greatest increase in highway-rail crossing 
safety with a dramatic 18 percent decline in fatalities and collisions. 
Projections for preliminary statistics for 1997 indicate a continued 
decrease in fatalities by nearly 10 percent. At the Department, these 
are more than mere statistics--these are actual lives saved. This 
overwhelming success highlights the tremendous progress made, since 
1994, in raising national awareness about safety at highway-rail 
crossings.
    From the beginning, FRA expanded the safety partnership to include 
everyone in the transportation safety industry--making safety 
everyone's business. FRA also knows that the key to preventing car/
train collisions and trespassing is working with communities to promote 
its life saving messages.
    As part of FRA's commitment to saving lives, the team successfully 
coordinated with the Association of American Railroads, Operation 
Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), FHWA, FTA and NHTSA to incorporate the ``A 
Highways or Dieways'' and ``Always Expect A Train'' public education 
campaigns as significant components of the Department's ``Moving Kids 
Safely'' and ``Safe Communities'' programs. The campaign focuses on 
raising awareness about the deadly consequences of trying to beat a 
train to a crossing and trespassing on railroad property. The campaigns 
have reached citizens in all 50 states via 270 television and cable 
markets, 673 radio markets and 200 publications. The ``Always Expect A 
Train'' campaign continues to air in Spanish and English every day 
throughout the Nation.
    Working with Operation Lifesaver, a non-profit national 
organization devoted to preventing crossing collisions and trespasser 
fatalities, FRA was an active participant in the Department's Safe 
Communities traffic safety program, the Garret A. Morgan education 
initiative, and the Moving Kids Safely child safety campaign, promoting 
FRA's lifesaving message throughout the Nation, reaching diverse 
audiences in all 50 states.
    As a related initiative, FRA developed an interactive community 
safety and education resource Internet WEB Page. The program provides 
exciting and innovative multimedia information to community leaders, 
teachers, students, and parents on rail safety, technology development, 
history, and, career opportunities and development. The site contains 
an interactive classroom site for use by teachers that provides lesson 
plans, publications, games and teaching resources that convey FRA's 
life saving message.
    One of the most important partnerships is with law enforcement. 
Partnering with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, FRA 
created a ticket jacket for use by local officers when ticketing 
trespass offenders. The ticket holder has valuable life saving 
information that raises awareness about the dangers of trespassing. 
More than 2,000 were distributed to local police throughout the nation 
and during separate conventions sponsored by the Fraternal Order of 
Police and the National Sheriffs' Association.
    In the aftermath of the tragic collision between a school bus and a 
commuter train at a crossing in Fox River Grove, Illinois in October 
1995, the Department partnered with Operation Lifesaver to develop a 
school bus driver training program, The Responsibility is Ours, to 
raise awareness about crossing safety. The program was distributed 
during 1997 to all State departments of education and transportation.
    The Department established the intermodal task force immediately 
following the tragic October 25, 1995, Fox River Grove, Illinois 
commuter train/school bus collision that claimed the lives of seven 
high school students. In 1996, the task force issued recommendations in 
its first report to the secretary entitled, Accidents That Shouldn't 
Happen.
    In June 1997, the Department issued a status report on the 
implementation of the original recommendations.
    It cited the success the task force achieved in fostering greater 
communication between federal, state and local governments, railroads 
and transit agencies and in correction to ensure similar incidents 
never occur.
    One of the most successful on-going programs is the Highway-Rail 
Crossing and Consolidation Program. FRA and FHWA continue to work with 
state and community officials to raise awareness that the safest and 
most efficient way to reduce crossing collisions is by eliminating and 
consolidating highway-rail crossings. In 1991, FRA established a goal 
to close 25 percent of the Nation's crossings. Last year 2,955 
crossings were reported closed. The total number of public and private 
crossings has been reduced 27,118 (9.3 percent) to a total of 265,721.
    In a related initiative, FRA and FHWA partnered with the Western 
Governors' Association to improve rail safety throughout Western 
communities and work to eliminate redundant crossings. FRA assisted in 
providing information for a reference guide on traffic safety and 
transportation efficiency that will be used by local communities.
    The Department also partnered with the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) 
to revise their Railroad Merit Badge. The badge requirements were 
outdated and lacked information on rail safety. Working with OLI and 
BSA, FRA created a new criteria that included valuable resource 
material on highway-rail crossing safety and trespass prevention. FRA 
and OLI attended the 1997 National Jamboree in Virginia to promote 
awareness about rail safety and the revised badge.
    During 1997, the first Department-wide workshop was held regarding 
Rails-with-Trails. Participants included Federal, State and local 
government officials, railroads, and, interest and civic groups. FRA is 
currently working to develop a national policy to assist communities 
with their transportation and recreational development planning along 
rail rights-of-way.
    In an effort to increase trespass prevention, model state trespass 
and vandalism prevention legislation was developed by the Department 
and disseminated to all 50 State Governors and State Secretaries of 
Transportation, the Congress, law enforcement agencies and 
transportation-related associations.
    FRA encouraged preparation of the National Cooperative Highway 
Research Program Legal Research Digest report titled, ``Photographic 
Traffic Law Enforcement.'' The report provides communities information 
on the effectiveness of placing cameras at crossings to monitor driver 
behavior, as an enforcement tool and as a deterrent to try to beat the 
train to the crossing. The report was widely distributed among national 
and key transportation officials.
    FRA conducted a national outreach effort to raise awareness about 
the Department's National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency 
Act (NEXTEA) proposal and how communities would benefit from the 
proposed flexible grade crossing funding allocation model. The new 
proposal is based on a prudent needs basis model that also allows 
states the flexibility to use funding for public education and trespass 
prevention programs.
    These are just a sample of the many accomplishments achieved 
through an active and broad-based partnership lead by the community-
based activities of FRA's Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass 
Prevention Program Managers. Each manager performs daily outreach to 
several states in each of their regions and serves as a point of 
contact for communities on various rail and intermodal safety 
initiatives.
    Clearly, the Action Plan's intermodal approach to preventing 
highway-rail crossing safety and trespasser casualties has been 
successful. While FRA should pause and praise the good, staff continues 
to be vigilant in efforts to improve railroad safety and save lives. 
The fact remains every 100 minutes someone in America is hit by a 
train. The key to all of FRA's success in rail safety, as in seat belts 
and child seats, is an emphasis on intermodal partnerships. Through 
FRA's railroad safety partnership FRA has made great strides but the 
challenge remains. The challenge is zero tolerance.
    FRA will continue to work with its partners to reach zero tolerance 
by accelerating FRA's efforts and continuing to broaden the partnership 
to achieve the goals outlined in the Action Plan.
    A copy of the most recent status report on the Action Plan is 
attached. The report provides a status of on-going initiatives and 
itemizes initiatives for 1999 and beyond.
    In addition to Action Plan-related initiatives, FRA will be working 
with its transportation safety partners, OLI and Action Plan DOT modal 
partners to increase awareness of crossing safety and the dangers of 
trespassing through a coordinated safety campaign. The objective is to 
unify the industry under one effective message and to leverage combined 
resources to maximize the effectiveness of a national and community 
level public awareness campaign that builds on ``Always Expect A 
Train''.
    Building upon the DOT Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan and 
the Grade Crossing Safety Task Force, FRA is working with FHWA, NHTSA, 
FTA and NTSB in developing a coordinated and effective intermodal 
strategic plan for preventing collisions between trains, trucks and 
school buses. This initiative is an excellent opportunity to enhance 
DOT's partnership with NTSB.
    The aim is to foster enhanced coordination and communication of on-
going intermodal initiatives and better leverage intermodal resources 
to identify possible endeavors in engineering, regulatory action and 
public awareness to prevent train/bus and truck collisions.
    The plan will encompass short and long term goals with specific 
action items for achieving success in the identified scope areas.
    A roundtable on the issue will be convened in an effort to better 
define the challenges and develop innovative and successful solutions. 
The roundtable will consist of approximately 30-40 key partners focused 
on developing best practices and developing a coordinated national 
campaign.
    Currently, trespass prevention is one of FRA's greatest safety 
challenges. FRA's goal is to prevent trespassing, not to make rail 
rights-of-way safe for trespassing. Disappointingly, the number of 
trespass casualties increased in 1997, counter to both the trend of 
recent years and to the trends in FRA's other casualty-oriented 
prevention programs. As with crossing safety, FRA is working with its 
intermodal partners to create common-sense solutions and use high 
technology to prevent trespassing.
    FRA has initiated an effort to demonstrate the applicability of 
intrusion detection technology to trespass prevention. Preliminary 
discussions have been held with Monroe County, New York, and Conrail 
officials. FRA currently is investigating available hardware.
    FRA currently is exploring the idea of underwriting the cost of 
detailing a local police officer part-time to each of FRA's Regional 
Offices. This officer would support and assist the Regional Manager for 
Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Programs and Operation 
Lifesaver State Coordinators in outreach efforts to local law 
enforcement agencies and to the public. Ideas to be explored include: 
Developing safety training programs for law enforcement regarding 
railroad rights-of-way, yards and other railroad property; develop 
focused campaigns for use in high-incident areas; and develop a program 
of awards and recognitions for law enforcement agencies and officers 
for outstanding law enforcement efforts in trespass prevention.
    Starting in January 1997, railroads have been reporting trespass 
casualties to FRA in an expanded format. A full year's data soon will 
be available. FRA will be analyzing this additional data and 
anticipates producing more detailed information regarding the times, 
places and activities involved, and identifying high-incident areas. 
The 1997 Trespasser Bulletin will reflect this additional material.
    FRA is working with OLI, and several railroad and state 
representatives to reach a consensus regarding needed additional 
information about the individuals involved in trespass incidents and 
options for collecting such demographic data. FRA hopes to produce a 
demographic study of 1997 trespass casualties.
    FRA will be exploring with DOT's other surface Administrations, OLI 
and the industry a follow-on to the Always Expect A Train campaign of 
1994 and 1995 with even more emphasis on trespass prevention. Ideas to 
be considered include: Media and PSA's to targeted venues such as 
journals and magazines on hiking, health, trail use, schools and 
education. A trespass toolbox with suggested program outlines and 
sample materials and lists of available resources and contacts for 
distribution to concerned communities, industry and State officials and 
other agencies.
    During discussions with OLI and industry officials (referenced 
above), FRA will consider options for supplementing current casualty 
reporting procedures with specific demographic data related to trespass 
casualties. At the same time, FRA will open a dialogue with NHTSA and 
with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) seeking their expertise and 
assistance in developing demographic data.
    Besides current casualty reporting procedures, consideration will 
be given to tapping railroad and police files regarding trespass 
incidents (that did not result in a casualty) and railroad near-hit 
programs. A centralized, uniform data base will be considered.
    FRA is working with DOT, NHTSA, FTA and FHWA outreach programs to 
insure that anti-trespass information becomes a part of existing 
established programs such as the Partnership for a Walkable America and 
the Bicycle/Pedestrian State Coordinators program. FRA has taken the 
lead, with support from the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials and the Institute of Transportation Engineers 
(and NHTSA, FHWA and FTA), to foster development of Rails-with-Trails 
casualty prevention guidelines for consideration and use by community/
trail planners.
                   shift of ol funds between accounts
    Question. Please detail the rationale for moving Operation 
Lifesaver funding from the Office of Research and Development's 
equipment, operations, and hazardous materials budget activity to the 
Office of Railroad Safety's safety regulation and program 
administration budget activity.
    Answer. FRA's Highway-Rail Crossing and Trespasser Team is 
organizationally located within the Office of Safety's Standards and 
Program Office, which is funded in the regulation and program 
administration activity.
    This Team's mission is to plan, develop, and direct programs which 
address highway-rail safety and trespasser issues and to provide 
coordination between concerned Federal, State and local governments, 
the railroad industry, and academia. One of the functions of the 
Crossing and Trespasser Team is to oversee involvement in highway-rail 
crossing and trespasser programs intended to prevent incidents and 
promote safety.
    In meeting that function, the oversight and liaison activities 
relevant to Operation Lifesaver historically have been handled by the 
Crossing and Trespasser Team. Consequently, in an effort to streamline 
FRA operations and increase efficiency and accountability, FRA moved 
Operation Lifesaver funding from the Office of Research and Development 
to the Office of Safety.
          fiscal years 1996-99 funding for operation lifesaver
    Question. Please prepare a table displaying FRA support for 
Operation Lifesaver, requested and appropriated, for fiscal years 1996, 
1997, 1998, and fiscal year 1999 request.
    Answer. The following table applies.

                   FRA SUPPORT FOR OPERATION LIFESAVER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Fiscal year                   Requested     Appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996....................................        $150,000        $300,000
1997....................................         300,000         600,000
1998....................................         400,000         600,000
1999....................................         300,000  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

           fiscal year 1998 increase for operation lifesaver
    Question. In the fiscal year 1998 Act, the conferees increased the 
funding for the Operation Lifesaver by $200,000. Please state how the 
FRA will use these additional monies.
    Answer. After discussions with Operation Lifesaver, Inc., FRA is 
increasing the grant to OLI for purposes outlined in the following 
table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         1998
              Activity                 original    New funds     Total         Anticipated use of new funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Assistance Grants............    $200,000    $121,000    $321,000  Increase direct grants to individual
                                                                           States from $179,000 to $300,000.\1\
Continuing Education Programs.......     119,000      10,000     129,000  Increase General Training/
                                                                           Consulting.\2\
Communications Programs.............      81,000      69,000     150,000  Conduct Strategic Planning.\3\
                                     ------------------------------------
      Total.........................     400,000     200,000     600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Direct States Assistance Grants fund applications from 30-40 individual States. Other projects in this
  program include State Coordinator Orientation, and the 1997 OL Annual Report/Best Practices Review by the
  States receiving Grants.
\2\ General Training/Consulting project includes training new Level I and II trainers. Other projects in this
  program include Symposium Coordination/Training, New Education Materials, and Leadership training.
\3\ Researching and developing an OL Strategic Plan is necessary so that OL can expand its program to include an
  increased focus on trespass abatement and transit issues. In addition, OL needs to increase public recognition
  in order to maximize the impact of its message through the implementation of a five-year public awareness and
  education campaign.

             inspector participation in operation lifesaver
    Question. Did your inspectors meet FRA's goal of participating in 
at least four Operation Lifesaver related activities? Is this still a 
goal at FRA? How did you respond to the guidance that the Committee 
provided in this area last year? Will the FRA letter to the House and 
Senate Committees detailing significantly increased inspector time 
allocated to Operation Lifesaver activities be submitted by the May 1, 
1998 deadline as required in the Senate report?
    Answer. Though FRA managers actively encourage FRA field safety 
inspectors and administrative staff to become certified Operation 
Lifesaver (OL) presenters and to assist OL in raising awareness of rail 
safety in their communities, a regional level of effort of four OL 
related activities per year per inspector has not been reached. While 
FRA Managers are committed to certifying as many FRA field staff as 
possible (currently, 233 of FRA's field staff [60 percent] are 
certified OL presenters), they also leverage resources by certifying 
people outside of the agency to promote the OL lifesaving messages. In 
so doing, FRA helps assure far greater numbers of people are capable of 
doing highway-rail crossing safety and trespass prevention 
presentations than would be available by using just FRA inspectors. 
Among the individuals that FRA has trained are employees of NHTSA, FHWA 
and railroads, county and municipal school bus drivers and trainers, 
police officers and other state/county/municipal and local safety 
officials. This is a vital element of the program as there is only one 
Manager for each of FRA's eight regions (which range in size from four 
to eight states). Given the limited resources that Managers have, the 
ability to leverage resources with intermodal, FRA and industry 
partners has greatly contributed to reducing the number of highway-rail 
crossing incidents.
    FRA's letter to the House and Senate Committees detailing Operation 
Lifesaver activities will be submitted as required in the Senate 
report.
                    fiscal years 1996-98 pc&b levels
    Question. Please prepare a table, by year, showing personnel 
compensation and benefits appropriated and amounts actually spent for 
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 for field and headquarters staff. 
What was done with any PC and B monies that were reallocated for other 
purposes during each of these years?
    Answer. Funds were not appropriated at the PC&B level, nor PC&B by 
field and headquarters. An object class table for the Safety 
appropriation was included in the budget request and reflected an 
ESTIMATE on how funds would be spent based on funding decisions at the 
time the budget was developed. Congressional actions, emergencies such 
as the UP and CSX accidents, absorption of unfunded costs and other 
policy actions change these decisions and FRA acts accordingly.
    FRA works very hard to develop sound estimates at the object class 
level. However, FRA, within the parameters of the appropriation and 
approved reprogramming guidelines, reallocates resources at the object 
class level to fund high priority needs. This is good budgeting and 
ensures that funds are not only spent in line with Congressional 
intent, but are leveraged to maximize safety.
                         safety staffing levels
    Question. Please verify the number of FTE's working at the Office 
of Safety and compare this to staffing levels of fiscal year 1996, 
fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998. How many vacancies now exist in 
the Office of Safety?
    Answer. The information follows: Actual on-board March 31, 1998, 
531; Fiscal year 1996 FTE's, 529; fiscal year 1997 FTE's, 520; and 
fiscal year 1998 estimate, 546.
    There are currently 7 vacancies in the field and 8 in safety 
headquarters. Recruit actions have been processed for all vacancies and 
positions should be filled before and/or by July 1.
                          safety travel budget
    Question. How much was spent on travel during fiscal year 1997, 
fiscal year 1998, and proposed for fiscal year 1999? Please separate 
the spending amounts for travel by field staff and headquarters staff, 
as well as for State employees.
    Answer. The information follows:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                  --------------------------------------
                                                    1998         1999
                                   1997 actual    estimate     estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters.....................         $677         $210         $302
Field............................        4,988        4,928        5,949
State Inspector Travel...........          227          235          250
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................        5,892        5,373        6,501
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            status of video conferencing and imaging system
    Question. What is the status of your video conferencing and imaging 
system? How do these technologies affect your request for travel? How 
much does it cost FRA to use the video? Please provide additional 
documentation showing that the eight regional crossing conferencing 
capability per hour? How often was this system used last fiscal year?
    Answer. Video Conferencing. The video conferencing system is up and 
running. FRA uses the following schedule to estimate the cost of each 
video conference session:

                               Usage cost

                                                                Cost per
        No. of links                                              minute
 1................................................................ $1.50
 2................................................................  2.25
 3................................................................  3.00
 4................................................................  3.75
 5................................................................  4.50
 6................................................................  5.25
 7................................................................  6.00
 8................................................................  6.75
 9................................................................  7.50
10................................................................  8.25

    During fiscal year 1997, the FRA video conferencing system was used 
20 times. (This was the first year the system was in use and during the 
period when FRA was involved in an agency move.) The use of the system 
enhanced communications between field and headquarters and was used for 
multi-regional discussions, especially in regards to SACP issues and 
sweep efforts. The use of video conferencing will not result in a net 
reduction in travel, but could reduce the percentage growth in 
headquarters travel as it relates to the field.
Imaging System
    The Domus system for correspondence flow control will be expanded 
to become a document imaging management system. This will improve work 
flow of FRA's internal documents. FRA is assessing its current systems, 
collecting user requirements, and will integrate resources from the 
current systems into an expanded imaging system to provide a central 
online filing system. This expansion will serve as the first phase 
FRA's document management system.
    The imaging system has no impact on travel.
                       safety funding by category
    Question. Please break down the fiscal year 1999 requested amount 
for the following: PCS, inspector trainee program, data collection, 
grade crossing safety, alcohol and drug testing, overtime, non-
mandatory bonuses, training and travel. Please prepare in tabular form 
comparable expenditures for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
    Answer. Information follows:

                         [Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                  --------------------------------------
                                                    1998         1999
                                   1997 actual    estimate     request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCS..............................       $1,405         $702       $1,628
Inspector Trainee Program........        1,554        1,619        1,780
Data Collection..................        1,267        1,291        1,325
Grade Crossing Safety \1\........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Alcohol and Drug Testing.........          314          522          434
Overtime.........................          220           88          110
Non-mandatory bonuses............           30           16           96
Training.........................          148          289          427
Travel...........................        5,892        5,373        6,501
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for grade crossing is not tracked in the budget or
  accounting reports.

                 role of eight new crossing assistants
    Question. Exactly what will the requested eight new assistant 
positions do to address intermodal, intra-departmental and MPO-related 
tasks? Who at FRA is handling these responsibilities now?
    Answer. The eight safety employees, one per FRA region, will assist 
the current Regional Crossing Managers and Regional Administrators who 
are engaged in addressing intermodal, intra departmental, State, 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, city and local government liaison 
activities. A majority of the tasks that will be assigned to these new 
positions are safety critical, and primarily involve supporting FRA's 
Crossing and Trespass Prevention Managers. The new employees will work 
with communities, law enforcement officials, the railroad industry, 
other government agencies, MPO's and organizations such as Operation 
Lifesaver to reduce the 530 rail related fatalities and 501 injuries 
projected that occurred among trespassers in 1997. Last year, for the 
first time, trespasser fatalities eclipsed grade crossing fatalities as 
the largest single category of fatalities resulting from rail 
operations.
    These new positions also will assist the Grade Crossing Managers in 
addressing the hazards at our nation's 166,035 public at-grade 
crossings and 106,715 private at-grade crossings. The Highway-Rail 
Grade Crossing Safety Program is clearly intermodal and intra-
departmental in nature. Crossing safety requires the coordination of 
efforts among FRA, the Federal Highway Administration, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, State Departments of 
Transportation, local communities and law enforcement agencies, and the 
railroad, automobile and trucking industries.
    The Highway-Rail Crossing and Trespass Prevention Program tasks 
cover many other subject areas as follows: Increasing enforcement of 
traffic laws at crossings; rail corridor crossing safety improvement 
reviews; increasing public awareness of crossing safety and operation 
lifesaver; safety at private crossings; data and research; and trespass 
prevention. Currently, FRA only has eight Regional Crossing and 
Trespass Prevention Managers to cover each of these major subject areas 
nationwide for a railroad system that has had substantial growth since 
1980. The basic railroad network has ten Class I railroads and more 
than 700 other railroads that operate over 220,000 track miles under 
FRA's jurisdiction. The rail network passes through all of the Nation's 
communities of any reasonable size. The growing number of contacts that 
must be maintained by the Crossing and Trespass Prevention Managers, 
clearly support the need for additional staff.
    Furthermore, FRA is increasingly being asked by communities to 
assist in evaluating the impacts of rail mergers on local communities 
(e.g., noise exposure, highway-rail crossing safety). The current 
breakup of Conrail poses major issues currently before FRA and the 
Surface Transportation Board. FRA continues to work with communities 
experiencing downstream effects of the BNSF and UP/SP mergers. These 
new positions will help to handle this merger related work load.
                need for additional principal inspectors
    Question. Please provide compelling evidence that the eight deputy 
regional administrators cannot meet their current responsibilities, and 
thus must be supplemented with eight principal inspectors.
    Answer. The eight Principal Inspectors (PI's) positions, one per 
FRA region, are needed to help meet the growing safety challenges 
associated with the railroad industry. The growth in rail traffic, 
decline in employment, emergence of mega-carriers and proliferation of 
shortline railroads continually strains FRA's safety oversight 
capacity. The eight PI positions are needed to shoulder the burden 
caused by the increasing work load.
    Deputy Regional Administrators and the Regional Administrators are 
primarily involved with the administration of the regions. Many have 
actively participated in the administration and implementation of SACP 
activities in their Region and some have served as SACP Project 
Managers, for the major railroads. However, FRA has found the SACP 
process to be equally effective in addressing safety concerns on 
regional railroads, the 16 commuter rail systems and many of the more 
than 600 shortline companies. The eight PI's are needed to help deal 
with the 5.4 percent increase in the number of new railroads, since 
1993. The sheer number of these intermediate sized carriers demands an 
increase in the number of PI's to plan, coordinate and participate in 
SACP safety audits and site inspections on these railroads.
    The emergence of mega-railroads, through mergers, coupled with a 36 
percent increase in Class I railroad freight traffic since the industry 
was deregulated has increased demands on monitoring railroad industry 
compliance with safety regulations covering track, equipment, signals, 
hazardous material, and operating practices. To assist in this 
endeavor, the eight additional PI's also will serve as Team Leaders on 
SACP safety audits where they will lead field inspection teams in 
conducting safety inspections on railroad property.
    In addition, FRA's safety responsibilities continue to grow, in 
large part due to fulfillment of statutory mandates to conduct 
rulemakings and special studies, which themselves lead to program 
initiatives. Completion of each new regulatory initiative yields a 
further substantial workload. The new PI's will be tasked with training 
FRA and state inspectors, structuring compliance reviews, establishing 
and monitoring reporting systems, providing training and assistance to 
small railroads, handling requests for waivers, and responding to 
complaints. Examples of new and proposed regulations that add to this 
workload include Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness, Passenger 
Equipment Safety Standards, Railroad Communications Track Safety 
Standards, Roadway Worker Protection rules, Power Brake regulations and 
Whistle Ban regulations.
    The Region Administrators and Deputy Regional Administrators are 
focused primarily on managerial and administrative tasks within the 
regions, including issues related to personnel, budget, policy 
implementation, representing the agency before other governmental, 
public and private entities and interfacing with headquarters.
    The Regional and Deputy Regional Administrators are responsible for 
overseeing program implementation at the Regional level. A number of 
new programs and initiatives have added to their duties and 
responsibilities, some of which are growing into discrete programs of 
major scale. These include:
    Intermodal service.--The growth of Intermodal traffic during the 
1990's has greatly complicated relationships among railroads, 
maintenance and inspection contractors, loading contractors, fleet 
owners, and transportation brokers. Among the significant issues 
currently being worked is securement of containers and trailers in 
Intermodal transportation.
    Bridge safety.--Continued restructuring of the railroad industry 
has placed a premium on attention to the bridge structural safety 
program (over 100,000 structures). In addition to monitoring bridge 
programs of major railroads through the SACP (as recently recommended 
by the Office of Inspector General), FRA must pay greater attention to 
bridge inspection programs on regional and short line railroads that 
lack on-staff engineering expertise. This aging infrastructure requires 
increasing attention.
    Enhanced passenger service.--Developments are making increasing 
demands on FRA's regulatory assets, technical staffs, and contractual 
resources. Examples include: Electrification of the balance of the 
Northeast Corridor to achieve speeds to 150 mph (subject of recent 
proposed order for an advanced civil speed enforcement); Florida's 
project for ultra high-speed rail Miami-Orlando-Tampa (subject of an 
extensive proposed rule of particular applicability just published); 
State concerns regarding highway-rail crossing treatments on lines 
identified for incremental improvements in passenger train speeds; and 
Proposals for operation of passenger service at higher curving speeds 
(waivers under consideration for New York and Washington State).
    Clearly, given the growing demands on FRA's safety program, it is 
imperative that the safety staff be further supplemented with positions 
that can coordinate, direct and participate in safety activities in the 
field an on railroad property. The eight additional Principle 
Inspectors are badly needed to help FRA carry out its safety mission.
                need for additional inspectors for sacp
    Question. What documented and quantifiable evidence can you present 
that the requested additional principal inspector and field inspector 
staff are needed to improve the implementation of the SACP?
    Answer. Since 1993, there has been a 5.4 percent increase in the 
number of new railroads. Also, Class I railroad freight traffic has 
increased about 36 percent since the industry was deregulated in 1980. 
The explosion in new railroads and traffic has increased demands on 
monitoring railroad industry compliance with safety regulations 
covering track, equipment, signals, hazardous material, and operating 
practices. Approximately 55 railroads have participated in ``open-
ended'' SACP safety audits, including all major freight and passenger 
carriers. The SACP safety audits leverage FRA's limited inspector 
resources to identify systemic problems that may have railroad-wide, or 
railroad-industry-wide implications. To date, more than 100 systemic 
safety concerns have been identified. While FRA recognizes that it is 
not feasible for all railroads to received SACP safety examinations, 
FRA needs additional inspector resources to continue adding certain 
railroads to this process. Eventually, all freight carriers with 
significant hazardous materials shipments, or those that interact with 
passenger train movements, should be included in this process.
    At the same time, FRA lacks the resources to visit every railroad 
at least once a year. In 1997, FRA was unable to visit 144 railroads, 
an increase of 64 percent over the 88 which FRA was unable to visit in 
1993.
    FRA's safety responsibilities continue to grow, in large part due 
to fulfillment of statutory mandates to conduct rulemakings and special 
studies, which themselves lead to program initiatives. Completion of 
each new regulatory initiative yields a further substantial workload in 
training FRA and state inspectors, structuring compliance reviews, 
establishing and monitoring reporting systems, providing training and 
assistance to small railroads, handling requests for waivers, 
responding to complaints, issuing uniform and consistent guidance in 
response to requests for interpretations, responding to myriad 
questions from auditors and congressional committees, and reviewing 
regulations for effectiveness and currency.
    FRA's safety programs require a balanced approach of inspections 
coupled with partnerships, which enlist the cooperation of rail labor 
and management to identify and correct safety concerns in the railroad 
industry. The most expeditious and responsive method of improving safe 
operating practices and procedures is to tap the knowledge and 
expertise of all affected stakeholders.
    As a result of increased public, congressional, and Administration 
expectations for the railroad safety program and the currents of change 
within the railroad industry, FRA is currently in a position of extreme 
vulnerability. Key staff are overworked, major program elements often 
lie unattended for extended periods due to competing workload, many 
projects are well behind schedule, and FRA is finding it increasingly 
difficult to support critical partnership efforts such as RSAC working 
groups and SACP initiatives. The requested increases in staffing are 
intended merely to reduce backlogs and provide an increased capacity to 
handle non-discretionary projects, while preventing burn-out of key 
staff where possible. Failure to acquire these resources will result in 
degraded customer service across a broad front. In addition, FRA is 
increasingly called upon by communities to assist in evaluating impacts 
of mergers on local communities (e.g., noise exposure, highway-rail 
crossing safety). The current breakup of Conrail poses major issues 
currently before FRA and the Surface Transportation Board, and FRA 
continues to work with communities experiencing downstream effects of 
the BNSF and UP/SP mergers.
    Eight Principal Inspectors (PI's) positions, one per FRA region, 
will assist the Deputy Regional Administrators and the Regional 
Administrators with planning and participation in Safety Assurance and 
Compliance Program (SACP) safety audits. Sixteen Field Inspectors will 
be distributed throughout selected regional offices to perform site-
specific inspections and to participate, as directed in SACP audits, 
and in advisory capacities in the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 
and Technical Resolution Committee reviews.
                        reprogrammings in safety
    Question. Please show any reprogramming or reallocation of Office 
of Safety funding from the appropriated amounts for fiscal year 1997 
and fiscal year 1998.
    Answer. Reprogrammings are only tracked at the Project, Program or 
Activity (PPA) level, per the Department's reprogramming guidelines, 
which were approved by the House and Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittees. The Office of Safety did not have any reprogrammings at 
the PPA level.
                            new fte's in r&d
    Question. Please detail the associated costs with the two new 
positions in the Office of Research and Development. When do you 
estimate the hiring process will be completed? What will the 
responsibilities of these two new people be? Please fully justify why 
these responsibilities cannot be absorbed by existing staff.
    Answer. FRA is requesting $147,000 for the two new positions; 
$68,000 for a position to support track research, and $79,000 for a 
position to manage and oversee communications-based Positive Train 
Control projects. Funding is for salaries and benefits. FRA estimates 
that these staff members could be hired shortly after the fiscal year 
begins.
    The new track engineer will assist in managing the portfolio of 
safety R&D projects dealing with track and structures and track-train 
interaction. It is a large portfolio consisting of more than 70 
projects that are budgeted at approximately $7 million annually. The 
number of projects in the portfolio has grown in the past year due to 
requirements developed by the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. There 
are currently three employees managing the programs; other R&D staff 
are fully utilized nor have the required expertise.
    The new electrical engineer will fill a void that exists at FRA. 
Currently, there are no staff telecommunications specialists in the 
agency. Knowledge of this technology is needed due to the growing 
emphasis on communications-based train control systems and on telemetry 
to bring data from train-borne and wayside sensors to locations where 
it can be analyzed and acted upon. This person will oversee projects 
related to Intelligent Train-Track Systems.
                           trb review of r&d
    Question. Last year, the Committee asserted that it would be 
beneficial to expand the purposes of the current TRB review to include 
a systematic analysis of the entire FRA R&D program, and included 
$150,000 to initiate the review. Will this review be continued during 
fiscal year 1999? If so, how much will it cost? Is this in the request? 
Are additional funds necessary to continue the review?
    Answer. The TRB review will be continued through May, 2001. The 
total cost of the review will be $350,000. Because of the availability 
of funds in our existing contract with TRB, no additional funds beyond 
the $150,000 provided in fiscal year 1998 will be required.
                 impact of r&d plan on fiscal year 1999
    Question. Please discuss the impact of your five-year research and 
development plan on the fiscal year 1999 budget request. How was this 
plan developed, and what outside input did you receive?
    Answer. The most obvious impact of the draft five-year R&D plan on 
the fiscal year 1999 budget request is in the structure of our R&D 
program. In the draft plan, FRA established 10 program areas: human 
factors, rolling stock, track and structures, track-train interaction, 
train control, grade crossings, hazardous materials, safety of train 
occupants, safety of high-speed ground transportation, and R&D 
facilities and equipment. Our fiscal year 1999 budget request was 
structured in the same manner, and most of the proposed projects were 
laid out in the draft plan.
    In the preparation of the draft five-year R&D plan, FRA's Office of 
Research and Development had discussions with a wide variety of user 
groups, both within and outside the agency. FRA's Office of Safety 
provided major input, along with the Federal Transit Administration, 
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Amtrak, the Association 
of American Railroads, the American Public Transit Association, the 
Railway Progress Institute, labor unions, railroads, States, suppliers, 
universities, and individuals. The results of those discussions formed 
the basis of the plan.
                            r&d cost sharing
    Question. What has FRA done since last year to promote additional 
cost sharing in the research and development program? How does FRA plan 
to continue this practice in 1999? How is this reflected in the budget 
proposal?
    Answer. The FRA's Office of R&D has continued to meet with the 
Association of American Railroads and the railroad industry (railroads, 
suppliers, unions) to identify cooperative research projects. FRA is 
also using the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee process and its 
Working Groups to investigate additional projects for cooperative 
research. One major effort is the Facility for Accelerated Service 
Testing (FAST), a joint government industry research project conducted 
at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. Another 
effort is with the RPI/AAR (Railway Progress Institute/Association of 
American Railroads) Tank Car Research Project where FRA and the 
industry are cooperating on several research projects to reduce the 
release of hazardous materials from tank cars involved in accidents. 
These projects include testing, which FRA funds, and tank cars and 
other equipment for testing, supplied by the industry. Industry also 
contributes technical expertise. To ensure maximum leveraging of 
research funding and to eliminate duplication in the area of passenger 
car research, the FRA cooperates extensively with organizations such as 
the American Public Transit Association (APTA) and the Federal Transit 
Administration. FRA has held discussions with APTA about co-funding 
some projects and APTA has agreed to ask their members to set aside 
some funds for this next year. Other projects include cooperation from 
various labor organizations, especially in the human factors area, in 
the form of technical experts and test subjects.
    FRA will continue meeting with all interested parties to further 
cooperative research in fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1999 budget 
request is for FRA's safety research efforts and assumes that there 
will be continued cooperation from the railroad industry in our 
research projects.
                    non-federal cost sharing in r&d
    Question. Please update and specify cash equivalents, in-kind 
services, or other funds obtained from non-Federal sources for each of 
the subcomponents of the R&D program for fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
    Answer.

                                  EQUIPMENT, OPERATIONS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Federal    Non-Federal               Percent non-
                         Fiscal year                             funds        funds     Total funds    Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................       $5,545       $3,295       $8,840           37
1998........................................................        5,659        2,296        7,855           29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of the cost-sharing under this program was the 
industry's contribution of equipment for the advanced braking and the 
bearing defect detection projects. Other cost-sharing includes in-kind 
contributions of technical expertise and equipment and related shipping 
costs for test projects under the locomotive and passenger car 
programs. Some in-kind contributions of time and training materials 
occurred in both the non-accident release and dispatcher training 
projects. Not included in the above figures is the industry 
contributions to the Operation Lifesaver program which is co-funded by 
FRA, FHWA, Amtrak, Association of American Railroads, Railway Progress 
Institute, and individual railroads.

                                      TRACK, STRUCTURES, AND TRAIN CONTROL
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Federal    Non-Federal               Percent non-
                         Fiscal year                             funds        funds     Total funds    Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................       $7,346       $6,156      $13,502           46
1998........................................................        7,746        5,750       13,496           43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nearly half of the cost-sharing under this program is provided by 
industry contribution to the Facility for Accelerated Service Test 
(FAST). Other significant fractions are provided by industry support to 
the Top-of-Rail Lubrication Safety Evaluation (jointly funded by DOE) 
and Rail Defect Test programs (an FRA and Association of American 
Railroads partnership) and by individual railroad contributions of 
train crews for test operations of FRA's Gage Restraint Measurement 
System (GRMS) as well as transportation of FRA's GRMS instrumentation 
car between test sites on different railroads. The West Virginia 
University is also cost-sharing on the glass fiber-reinforced composite 
wood tie project.

                                   SAFETY OF HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Federal    Non-Federal               Percent non-
                         Fiscal year                             funds        funds     Total funds    Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................       $4,600         $156       $4,756            3
1998........................................................       $4,650          $60       $4,710            1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A majority of the work to date has been to conduct safety 
assessments of foreign high-speed rail technologies in support of 
rulemaking for the Office of Safety. This type of research, in the 
past, generally does not get cost-sharing from industry. In fiscal year 
1998, the limited cost-sharing has been for continued fire testing and 
passenger car crashworthiness. FRA is leveraging its technical 
expertise with DOE to support the Transportation EMF Environmental 
characterization ($100,000 per year over 3 years); and with FAA, to 
support to monitor non-ionizing radiation safety issues. These are not 
direct cost-sharing programs.

                                                 R&D FACILITIES
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Federal    Non-Federal               Percent non-
                         Fiscal year                             funds        funds     Total funds    Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................         $420         $510         $930           55
1998........................................................          770        1,040        1,810           57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A major portion of FRA's research funding supports projects that 
are conducted at the Transportation Technology Center (TTC). The TTC is 
operated for the FRA by the Transportation Technology Center, Inc, 
(TTCI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Association of American 
Railroads under a long-term Care, Custody, and Control contract. The 
total business volume of the TTCI at TTC is on the order of $30 million 
per year. Of this, approximately 25 percent or less is provided by FRA. 
Therefore, the majority of the costs for operation, maintenance, and a 
few selectively chosen capital improvements to the TTC is borne by the 
TTCI and its customers via AAR's overhead rate and pricing structure 
for non-FRA projects at TTC.
                          r&d volpe contracts
    Question. Please list all FRA research and development program 
contracts with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center that 
were signed in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, including a short summary of 
each specific contracted project, and the associated amount.
    Answer. The information follows for each Project Plan Agreement.
                      rr-19 track systems research
    The Track Systems Research Program assesses the risk of derailment 
induced by track defects and helps determine the level of inspection 
and maintenance resources to minimize these risks. Specific tasks are 
based on accident statistics, track maintenance costs, and engineering 
expectations of potential problems. The results of this research have 
been incorporated in the risk management strategies of railroads 
throughout the United States and are used in revising current track 
safety standards.
    Research activities under this program include:
  --Rail Integrity
  --Track Structural Mechanics
  --Track Inspection Tools
  --Vehicle Track Interaction
  --Train Control Device Safety
  --Risk Assessment and Management Strategies
  --Special Projects related to Track Systems Safety
    Funding: Fiscal year 1997--$2,122,000; fiscal year 1998--
$1,417,000.
                      rr-28 rail equipment safety
    The Rail Equipment Safety Program supports FRA's research on 
railroad equipment and operating practices (including human factors) 
and hazardous material safety. The research and engineering studies 
provide the technology needed to reduce the likelihood of accidents 
related to the design, operation, and maintenance practices of railroad 
freight and passenger equipment.
    Research activities under this program include:
  --Structural Integrity of Tank Cars/Components
  --Human Factors Influencing Operator and Crew Performance
  --Advanced Operation and Information Displays
  --Train Make-Up, Handling, and Controls
  --Rail Passenger Evacuation Safety
  --Rail Equipment Collision Safety
  --Rail Vehicle Dynamics
  --Dedicated Train Study
  --Advanced Risk Analysis
  --Trailer/Container Securement
  --Steam Locomotive Study
    Funding: Fiscal year 1997--$1,995,000; fiscal year 1998--
$2,250,000.
             rr-93 high-speed ground transportation safety
    This program provides FRA with technical information needed for 
rulemaking initiatives related to the implementation of advanced high-
speed ground transportation systems. Program assesses the applicability 
of existing regulations and requirements for systems based on foreign 
technologies that have been proposed for implementation in the United 
States. Worked is used to draft waivers to permit demonstration of new 
equipment and in the preparation of related new rules.
    Research activities under this HSGT program include:
  --Advanced Train Control and Automation Safety
  --Risk Assessments and System Safety Analyses
  --Human Factors and Automation
  --Right-of-Way Structures (Guideway Integrity; Platform Safety)
  --Equipment Safety (Crashworthiness; Interior Safety; Glazing)
  --Vehicle/Track Interaction (Track Safety Standards)
  --Emergency Preparedness
  --Fire Safety
  --Noise Identification and Mitigation
  --EMI/EMC and Electrical Safety
  --Electromagnetic Fields and Maglev Environmental and Health Safety 
        Issues
    Funding: Fiscal year 1997--$1,925,000; fiscal year 1998--
$2,400,000.
                rr-97 highway-rail grade crossing safety
    Work supports FRA's highway-railroad grade crossing safety research 
program. This research includes innovative warning signs, more reliable 
active signal systems, techniques to increase the conspicuity of 
trains, improved acoustic warning systems, and technologies applicable 
to the needs of high-speed rail passenger service. Other initiatives 
include enforcement and education activities as well as a greater 
emphasis on the human response to grade crossing warning device 
applications. Accident statistics analysis and research reviews are 
also included. On-going demonstration projects are being evaluated. 
Corridor risk assessments are included. Funding comes from both the R&D 
program and the Next Generation High-Speed Rail program.
    Research activities under this program being conducted at the Volpe 
Center include:
  --Grade Crossing Statistics Analysis
  --Causal Analysis of Crossing Accidents
  --Evaluation of High-Speed Rail Grade Crossing Demonstration Projects
  --High-Speed Corridor Risk Assessment
  --Illumination Guidelines
  --Locomotive Conspicuity
  --Freight Car Reflectorization
  --Optimal Acoustic Warning Systems
  --Wayside Horn Systems
  --Driver Behavior
  --Driver Education Programs
  --Photo Enforcement
  --Obstacle and Intrusion Detection
  --Vehicle Proximity Alerting System
    Funding: Fiscal year 1997--$1,178,000; fiscal year 1998--
$1,250,000.
             rr-03 next generation high-speed rail support
    This work is funded under the Next Generation High-Speed Rail 
budget rather than the Research and Development budget. The purpose of 
this effort is to enhance the deployment of high-speed passenger rail, 
particularly on existing infrastructure, by improving, adapting and 
demonstrating innovative and cost-effective technologies which have 
wide application in U.S. corridors.
    The Volpe Center provides technical support to the FRA in assessing 
candidate technologies and procedures to determine the likely impact on 
rail operations, including safety, performance, reliability and 
economic viability.
    Research activities conducted under this program include:
  --High-Speed Positive Train Control
  --High Performance Non-Electric Locomotive Development
  --Innovative Technologies for Track and Structural Improvements
  --Railroad Test Track Upgrade
    Funding: Fiscal year 1997--$1,100,000; fiscal year 1998--$0.
           funds invested in specific grade crossing projects
    Question. Please assess the status of the following projects, 
amount invested to date, fiscal year 1998 funds levels, and amount 
expected to be invested using fiscal year 1999 monies:
    [1] A crosscutting review or assessment of different high-speed 
rail demonstration projects and the technologies being advanced in 
these projects;
    [2] Reasons drivers violate grade crossing devices and signs; and
    [3] A crosscutting review of grade crossing technology.
    Answer. The following tables provide the requested information:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Amount               Fiscal year--
                             Project                                invested to  -------------------------------
                                                                       date        1998 estimate   1999 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Evaluation of grade crossing demonstrations.................        $150,000         $10,000  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status: Because most of the grade crossing demonstrations are still under construction, it was not possible to
  evaluate them completed. However, a partial review was performed and a draft final report has been submitted
  by the contractor and is now under review within FRA.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Amount               Fiscal year--
                             Project                                invested to  -------------------------------
                                                                       date        1998 estimate   1999 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2] Driver behavior.............................................        $100,000        $100,000        $150,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status: This project was initiated in fiscal year 1997 supporting the driver behavior elements in freight car
  reflectivity. A low-cost simulator has been established and used in the research at the Volpe Center. A study
  design is in preparation. Results should identify driver behaviors associated with various current and
  possibly future crossing warning device technologies.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Amount               Fiscal year--
                             Project                                invested to  -------------------------------
                                                                       date        1998 estimate   1999 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[3] Review of grade crossing technology.........................        $570,000         $20,000  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status: Four reports have been prepared on highway-railroad grade crossing technologies, reviewing European
  (Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, UK, Germany) and Far East (Japan and Australia) activities in the areas of
  Train Control and Signaling, Obstruction Detection, Warning Devices and Barrier Systems, and Decision
  Methodologies used to apply warning devices at grade crossings. These reports are nearing completion by the
  Volpe Center and will soon be submitted to FRA for review. Meanwhile, as part of a separate initiative, the
  key findings of these draft reports are being extracted for dissemination to States, railroads, and other
  users.
Follow-on work has been identified in the Obstruction Detection area to include Railroad Right-of-Ways as well
  as Grade Crossings.

                     status of corridor risk study
    Question. Why hasn't the corridor risk study been completed? What 
is the status and future plans for resolution of concerns held by AAR 
regarding this study?
    Answer. The Corridor Risk Analysis study was initiated to determine 
if characteristics of rail corridors could be identified that might be 
associated with higher than average risk of accidents of the kind 
preventable through use of Positive Train Control (PTC) systems. 
Results are intended to guide public and private sector decisions 
regarding PTC implementation. The initial phase of the work is 
complete, and the second, concluding phase is in progress based upon 
guidance from the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) PTC Working 
Group.
    This project is extremely complex, requiring the construction of a 
Geographic Information System (GIS) with a greater level of detail than 
had previously been available, the identification of preventable 
accidents, and segmentation of the rail network. The task is 
complicated by the relatively small number of accidents involved when 
measured against the expanse of the national rail system and large 
exposure numbers. The first phase of this effort was completed in 1997. 
In addition to briefing the full RSAC on the general status and results 
of the effort, FRA arranged for the Volpe National Transportation 
Systems Center (Volpe Center) to present the methodology and results in 
detail at a peer review briefing on September 12 , 1997, at Cambridge, 
Massachusetts. Railroad representatives at the peer review expressed 
concern over corridor segmentation, normalizing data (modeled traffic 
flows), and the statistical methods employed. At this meeting and 
during subsequent discussions, some railroad representatives suggested 
that this type of geographically-based risk analysis was simply not 
possible; however, no documented reasons for this conclusion were 
provided. FRA responded to specific criticisms by encouraging the 
railroads to provide more useful alternative data and suggestions for 
corridor definitions. FRA and the Volpe Center remain confident that a 
corridor risk model can be useful in planning for wise investments in 
PTC technology.
    On September 30, 1997, the RSAC established the PTC Working Group, 
which has been meeting regularly since last November. The Data and 
Implementation Task Force of that working group is providing guidance 
for redirection of the corridor risk work. Discussions have generated 
approaches for refinement of the study methodology. Railroad members 
have committed to providing improved density data by May 1, 1998, 
together with alternative corridor definitions. At the task force 
meeting of April 6-8, 1998, the Volpe Center led a discussion of an 
issue paper describing the decisions required to complete the corridor 
risk work. The task force appeared receptive to most of the 
recommendations provided in response to issues raised within the task 
force.
    Assuming timely receipt of density data that is readily 
``mappable'' to the GIS, FRA anticipates production of a draft report 
incorporating the results of the second-phase modeling effort by 
September 1998. The PTC Working Group will then have a final 
opportunity to comment on the results, including their significance and 
any limitations of the final study methodology. This information will 
be included in the report of the RSAC to the Administrator on the 
future of PTC.
                         human factors research
    Question. Please provide an update of the progress that has been 
made in the human factors program since last year. How much of the 
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 allocated funds have been spent, 
and for what purposes? Please delineate objectives on a project by 
project basis. Please provide additional details on the plans for any 
new human factors research in fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. Following is a summary of FRA's human factors R&D work:
Train Operations
    1. A pilot test of the study design for Engineer Napping Strategies 
is expected to begin in June 1998 resulting in refinements to test and 
analysis approaches by the end of the year. The primary purpose of this 
research is to determine if strategic on-duty napping can improve 
locomotive engineer performance and safety. Future year funding will be 
needed to complete this project.

Fiscal year:
    1997....................................................\1\ $900,000
    1998......................................................   400,000
    1999......................................................   200,000

\1\ Includes $530,000 from fiscal year 1996.

    2. At least three Vigilance Monitoring devices will be used during 
the napping study to gather data and test their usefulness in the 
railroad operating environment. The purpose of these tests is to 
determine sleep quantity/quality (before work), alertness during 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
operations, and fitness for duty before and after the work period.

Fiscal year:
    1997................................................................
    1998......................................................  $300,000
    1999......................................................   300,000

    3. Pilot tests of data collection and analysis methodologies for 
Dispatcher Workload, Stress and Fatigue are underway and are expected 
to be completed during the summer of 1998. Methods of measuring 
workload, stress and fatigue (alertness) in a uniform manner and 
thresholds for safe performance are to be established. Out year funding 
will be needed to complete this effort, including testing.

Fiscal year:
    1997......................................................  $225,000
    1998......................................................   224,000
    1999......................................................   378,000

    4. A study to evaluate the effects of information-mediated fatigue 
and automation on locomotive engineer vigilance in high-speed 
operations (High-Speed Operator Stress and Fatigue) was completed in 
June, 1997 at the Volpe Center. The study evaluated situational 
awareness and the monitoring of equipment failures under three 
operational conditions: manual control, cruise control, and full 
automation. A report on this study is in preparation and is currently 
expected to be completed in May. Out year funding will be needed to 
evaluate related issues.

Fiscal year:
    1997......................................................  $100,000
    1998......................................................   200,000
    1999......................................................   200,000

    5. The report on Dispatcher Training Evaluation through the 
development and industry review of model syllabi is under review. 
Revisions are anticipated to result in a final report to be published 
in the Fall of 1998. A workshop and distribution of the syllabi on the 
internet is anticipated in 1999. Evaluation of the implications of 
recent mergers on dispatcher training may also be required.

Fiscal year:
    1997......................................................  $200,000
    1998......................................................   200,000
    1999......................................................   200,000

    6. A new initiative, Evaluation of Digital Communications in High-
Speed Operations, is planned for fiscal year 1999. This multi-year 
project will examine the human factors implications of using digital 
communications between locomotive engineers and dispatchers. Currently, 
such communications are by voice which has proven to be less efficient 
and precise than digital communications. Transition from voice to 
digital communications will change the task of the locomotive engineer, 
therefore the human factors effects of this transition need to be 
evaluated.

Fiscal year 1999..............................................  $100,000
Yard and Terminal
    A report on Phase 1 of the multi-phase Yard and Terminal Safety 
study entitled Railroad Worker Safety in Yards and Terminals: An 
Evaluation of Existing Data Resources and Proposed Methods for Further 
Study was published in the Spring of 1997. Analysis of accident 
patterns is currently underway.

Fiscal year:
    1997......................................................  $150,000
    1998......................................................   150,000
    1999......................................................   150,000
Grade Crossings
    Several activities are in various stages under the overall heading 
of Grade Crossing Safety: in the review or revision stage are--Freight 
Car Reflectorization and Evaluation of Wayside Horns; ongoing or 
recently initiated are--Optimal Acoustic Warning Systems, Driver 
Behavior, Accident Causation Analysis, and a review of Driver Education 
Programs.

Fiscal year:
    1997......................................................  $385,000
    1998......................................................   435,000
    1999......................................................   435,000
                 fatigue mitigation strategies research
    Question. What are the fatigue mitigation strategies that have been 
investigated during the last year? What were the results of these 
efforts?
    Answer. Projects to study napping strategies and vigilance 
monitoring devices are currently underway. Both projects make use of 
the RALES simulator at IIT Research Institute and are being performed 
simultaneously. The napping study will examine four conditions. The 
control group will have no nap, while the three nap groups will be 
allowed naps that vary in duration. In the vigilance monitoring study, 
at least three vigilance monitoring devices will be used during the 
napping study to gather data and test their usefulness in the railroad 
operating environment. As these projects have just recently begun, it 
is too early to meaningfully discuss results. The napping strategies 
project is expected to require another two years to complete and the 
vigilance monitoring project will take another year to complete.
               innovative working schedule pilot programs
    Question. What is FRA doing either to monitor or evaluate various 
innovative working schedule pilot programs or other fatigue 
countermeasures now being implemented by various railroads? Is any work 
planned in this area for fiscal year 1999? Are any fiscal year 1999 
funds requested for such evaluation? How much would it cost to do a 
benefit/cost analysis on the impacts to rail labor, management, and 
safety for one or two of these ongoing private sector pilot programs? 
How is FRA's fatigue research coordinated with these private sector 
activities?
    Answer. FRA is a currently participating in the North American Rail 
Alertness Partnership (NARAP). One of the stated purposes of NARAP is 
to exchange information concerning fatigue countermeasures, innovative 
working schedules, and other pilot programs. FRA has previously been 
aware of the industry activities with regard to fatigue, in particular 
the activities of the AAR Work Rest Task Force. However, to date, the 
FRA has received little solid information concerning the outcomes of 
these activities. In the absence of quantitative data, it is difficult 
or impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. The 
prime concern at FRA is safety. Unfortunately, none of the industry 
programs has specifically examined the effects of fatigue 
countermeasures and other programs on train handling performance to 
determine that the implemented changes are having any effect on this 
safety-crucial element. FRA's current fatigue research is focused on 
napping strategies and vigilance monitoring in the locomotive cab, and 
on measurements of workload, stress and fatigue in the dispatcher's 
work environment. In every instance, FRA has anticipated the need for 
projects in these areas by carefully monitoring industry trends and 
scientific developments in the fatigue research community.
    Work on napping strategies and vigilance monitoring will continue 
in fiscal year 1999. Funding requested in fiscal year 1999 is $200,000 
for napping strategies and $300,000 for vigilance monitoring.
    FRA has not determined the cost to do a benefit/cost analysis on 
the impacts to rail labor, management, and safety for one or two of 
these ongoing private sector pilot programs, however it is expected to 
be extremely expensive. No quantifiable data exists on which to base 
the benefit/cost study because performance measures are not included in 
the pilot projects. Research will be necessary to verify any 
assumptions being made.
    Increased cooperation and coordination on fatigue research projects 
with the industry are a major goal of FRA's participation in NARAP.
                dispatcher workload, stress and fatigue
    Question. What is the status of your work on the development of 
tests and methodology for the evaluation of dispatcher workload, stress 
and fatigue? Please describe the results, and how the fiscal year 1998 
research and development program will continue into fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. Field tests for Phase II of the Dispatcher Workload, Stress 
and Fatigue project were completed in February. The objective of Phase 
II was to determine the feasibility of using candidate methods for the 
measurement and evaluation of dispatcher workload, stress and fatigue 
(which were previously identified in Phase I) in the dispatcher's 
workplace. Candidate methods would be selected for use in Phase III if 
they were acceptable to dispatchers, were easy and quick to administer, 
and did not interfere with performance of dispatching tasks. Methods to 
measure workload, stress and fatigue were identified for use in Phase 
III that met these criteria. Workload methods include dispatcher 
records and subjective ratings of workload. Stress measurements include 
salivary coritsol and subjective ratings. Fatigue measurements include 
actigraphy, sleep logs and subjective ratings. The final tasks in Phase 
II are the development of a research plan for the full field study for 
Phase III and the writing of a final report for Phase II. These two 
tasks are expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1998. 
Phase III, the full field study will begin in fiscal year 1999.
                    hours of service pilot projects
    Question. What is the status of the project which allowed FRA to 
waive, for experimental purposes, the hours of service regulations? 
What information has been collected that could lead to a regulatory 
revision of the hours-of-service requirements?
    Answer. This project requires the cooperation of a railroad to 
request a waiver so that an experiment can be designed and performed. 
Although initial discussions with several railroads looked promising at 
one time, to date no cooperative agreements have been reached and no 
railroads have requested waivers.
                 high-speed operator stress and fatigue
    Question. What is the status of the project to evaluate stress and 
fatigue issues unique to high-speed train operators. What is the status 
of this project?
    Answer. The FRA's approach to the simulation of high-speed rail 
operations has emphasized problems caused by the high rate of 
information flow at high operating speeds. Human capacity to receive, 
process and react to information is limited. The FRA is using a ``part 
task'' simulator at the Volpe Center to simulate visual and other 
sensory-motor aspects of high-speed operations to evaluate the stress 
and fatigue caused by high rates of information flow and the 
requirement to act and react on the basis of that information. Since 
the conditions of interest are computer generated, they are easily 
replicated for evaluation. The ``part task'' simulator which is used 
for this evaluation does not simulate the physical motion, or many 
other aspects, of high-speed operations.
    The study to evaluate the effects of information-mediated fatigue 
and automation on locomotive engineer vigilance in high-speed 
operations was completed in June, 1997 at the Volpe Center. The study 
evaluated situational awareness and the monitoring of equipment 
failures under three operational conditions: manual control, cruise 
control, and full automation. A report on this study is in preparation 
and will be completed shortly.
                     passenger equipment standards
    Question. Please discuss how the equipment and components 
subprogram reflects the congressional mandate for FRA to develop 
passenger equipment standards. How has FRA's research program been 
incorporated into this rulemaking? How much money was spent for this 
purpose in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, and how much is 
planned for fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. To respond to the mandate of the Congress to develop 
passenger equipment safety standards, FRA has expanded its passenger 
equipment safety project within the equipment and component subprogram 
since fiscal year 1996. To support each element of the standards such 
as the system safety plan, equipment crashworthiness and vehicle 
dynamics, FRA's research program developed the necessary technical data 
and provided advice to the FRA team writing the standards. A project on 
passenger rail vehicles dynamics was initiated in fiscal year 1996 to 
verify the safety assessment method and derailment criteria. Another 
project on passenger restraint systems was initiated in fiscal year 
1997 to study the effectiveness of various passenger restraint designs. 
In fiscal year 1998, a project was initiated to evaluate the safety of 
diesel multiple units and light rail vehicles used in commuter rail 
service.
    Results from these research projects, along with work being 
conducted under the Safety of High-Speed Ground Transportation program, 
has been incorporated in the text of the proposed Interim Safety 
Standards. Ongoing work on crashworthiness, especially for cab cars 
will be incorporated in the next phase of the rulemaking.
    Funding included $800,000 in fiscal year 1997, $800,000 in fiscal 
year 1998. FRA is requesting $1 million in fiscal year 1999.
                   advanced braking system evaluation
    Question. Please summarize the progress made to date regarding the 
Advanced Braking Systems Evaluation. What is your five-year plan with 
regard to testing and evaluating Advanced Braking Systems? How much has 
been spent on this effort in each of the last three years and how much 
is proposed for fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. FRA has been working with industry co-operatively in the 
development of industry performance and interchange requirements for an 
advanced electronically-controlled pneumatic braking system (ECP). FRA 
has supported the safety related work inherent in the development of 
these specifications. Advanced Braking Systems are currently under test 
use in a number of unit train applications. These trainsets use the 
hardwired power source (as opposed to local battery/generator on each 
freight car) and a hard wire for signal transmission. FRA has also 
supported safety-oriented laboratory tests and in-train tests at the 
Transportation Technology Center (TTC). Revenue service tests have also 
been conducted with some FRA support. The safety of these trainsets is 
being closely monitored, with failures of individual components being 
recorded. A system safety and reliability study is planned using the 
Failure Modes and Effects and Criticality Analysis approach. FRA 
expects to formalize a procedure for safety assessment of new braking 
systems.
    To extend the use of Advanced Braking Systems to non-unit train 
cars, that is the general service car, FRA is sponsoring the 
development of automatic couplers with built-in air and electric lines 
and added mechanical safety features. This will facilitate coupling of 
cars and enhance crew safety. This project is in its early stage. As 
with all new technologies, new variants appear on the scene. Radio-
based signal transmission means have been proposed by new entrants. A 
safety assessment of these may be required as with the hard-wired 
systems. Informal interviews of locomotive crew members indicate great 
enthusiasm for advanced braking systems, particularly the train 
handling features. This work will continue in the next several fiscal 
years.
    Beyond fiscal year 1999 the safety record will be monitored and 
additional control and surveillance functions will be proposed for 
addition to the total ECP system. FRA will examine both hard-wired and 
radio-based versions of ECP brakes. ECP braking systems have improved 
the stop distance performance dramatically and the uniformity of 
braking among cars. ECP braking represents a major safety improvement 
in the rail industry.
    Funding is as follows:

Fiscal year:
    1996......................................................   $75,000
    1997......................................................   150,000
    1998......................................................   250,000
    1999 (request)............................................   250,000
             wayside equipment inspection detection program
    Question. Please summarize the progress made to date regarding the 
Wayside Equipment Inspection Detection program. What is your program 
plan for the next five years in this area? What is the program plan for 
the Wayside Inspection Station? How much has been spent on these 
efforts for each of the last three years and how much is proposed for 
fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. FRA has supported and developed a number of measurement 
system methodologies to establish car/train stability, equipment 
performance or lack thereof, and the means to record and transmit data 
for appropriate use. These include wheelset angle-of attack, lateral/
vertical loads, bearing temperatures, and wheel temperatures. Recently, 
FRA has funded a project to develop the means to measure wheel residual 
stress, an all-important determinant of wheel structural integrity, and 
an acoustic detector of identifying potentially unsafe bearings. These 
are reaching a stage of development where commercial products may soon 
be possible.
    Development of a new generation of equipment defect detectors, 
which have the ability to detect defects at their early stage of 
failure and with a high degree of confidence, is needed. FRA's plan 
over the next five years is to accelerate the development of such 
devices to improve overall safety and to implement devices into an 
automated inspection station.
    Inspection strategies for freight cars based solely on visual 
inspections have limitations. Periodic required inspection and 
maintenance is expensive. Condition-based inspection and subsequent 
maintenance and repair may improve the use of resources. Initially, FRA 
is working to co-operatively establish, with one or more railroads, a 
wayside equipment inspection detection station to cover a large 
fraction of the active cars in the railroad's fleet. This station will 
be used to demonstrate the newer measurement systems for monitoring 
wheel, truck and bearing condition. The co-operating railroad will have 
to make a significant investment. In time, it should be possible to 
establish a network of stations geographically positioned for full 
coverage thereby giving the railroad the ability to monitor its fleet 
for condition.
    Funding is as follows:

Fiscal year:
    1996......................................................  $475,000
    1997......................................................   300,000
    1998......................................................   300,000
    1999 (request)............................................   300,000
              on-board equipment health monitoring systems
    Question. What progress has been made to date regarding On-Board 
Equipment Health Monitoring Systems? How much has been spent on this 
effort for each of the last three years and how much is proposed for 
fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. As an adjunct to the Advanced Braking program FRA is 
supporting the development and testing of on-board safety monitoring 
systems that will provide continuous monitoring of the brake system 
status. Other braking system parameters also can be included such as 
brake cylinder pressure and handbrake position sensing, with the 
information provided to the engineer along with certain other selected 
parameters. Some brake system parameters are already operational with 
the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake system.
    On-board detection of freight car (and passenger car) truck 
suspension hunting on an on-going basis also is envisaged. As part of 
the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program, two systems were developed 
under Phase I Small Business Innovative Research contracts. One of 
these is now being developed into a prototype under a Phase II effort. 
This system will be evaluated for incorporation in this on-board 
monitoring program. Some form of revenue service demonstration/testing 
will be planned.
    Other systems and components to be included in this monitoring 
system include overheating of wheels and brake pads, bearing 
temperature, ride quality, and instantaneous derailment detection. Due 
to increased traffic, car and train weight increases are expected. 
Thus, more reliable brake rigging will also be addressed through 
research. The use of distributed power with ECP-equipped trains to 
utilize the train line for communication and multiple-unit cable 
linking the lead unit with locomotives throughout the train will be 
investigated.
    Funding is as follows:

Fiscal year:
    1996................................................................
    1997......................................................  $300,000
    1998......................................................   300,000
    1999 (request)............................................   330,000
                             track research
    Question. How were the funds allocated in fiscal year 1998 spent 
for track research? Please explain the purpose of each project and the 
amount funded. What are the comparable planned expenses in this area 
for fiscal year 1999, and how is this reflected in the request?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1998, a total of $7.246 million was 
appropriated for track research. The total funding request for track 
research in fiscal year 1999 is $6.950 million. The following table 
shows how these funds are allocated among the four major program 
activities for fiscal year 1998 and the allocation planned for fiscal 
year 1999 reflecting a restructuring of the overall R&D program.

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year--
                                               -------------------------
                                                    1998         1999
                                                  estimate     request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track and Components..........................       $2,585  ...........
Inspection-Detection..........................        2,250  ...........
Track Train Interaction.......................        1,364  ...........
Signal, Train Control, and Electrification....        1,047  ...........
Track and Components Safety...................  ...........       $3,900
Track-Train Interaction Safety................  ...........        3,050
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................        7,246        6,950
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of each of these program activities for fiscal year 
1998 can be found on pages 71-73 of FRA's Congressional Budget 
Justification, and are as follows:
    Track and Components.--This program activity assesses the 
structural integrity of the existing track structure and its components 
in light of the changing environment of higher axle loads, traffic 
densities, and speeds and the recent trends of introducing newer 
unconventional vehicle types and newer track materials. It includes 
research on more complex track components, such as turnouts, in 
addition to more commonly considered track components, such as rail, 
crossties, and ballast. Emphasis is given to failure modes and 
degradation processes which most impact the safety of track.
    Inspection-Detection.--This program activity aims to improve track 
defect detection techniques and other technologies related to 
inspection equipment, with the goal of reducing train accidents 
resulting from failures in the track structure. Potential research 
products include new techniques and equipment that could provide 
accurate and reliable assessment of track safety, or aid in the 
effective planning of track maintenance as a preventive measure against 
hazardous structural failure of track or bridges. The new techniques 
could serve as the basis for performance-based track safety standards 
which do not inhibit innovation.
    Track Train Interaction.--This research area will develop 
analytical tools, instrumentation, and test data that can accurately 
describe the interaction between the rolling stock and the supporting 
track structure. This interaction is not limited to the instantaneous 
transfer of dynamic forces from vehicle to track but extends to cover 
cumulative effects on track degradation such as wear and surface 
fatigue of railheads and deterioration of track geometry. Some of the 
safety-related issues which will greatly benefit from progress in this 
research area include the impact of high-speed passenger service on 
existing track, the development of performance-based track geometry 
standards, and the development of guidelines for optimum inspection and 
maintenance practices to enhance track safety and durability.
    Signal, Train Control, and Electrification.--The goal of this 
research area is to evaluate critical and interrelated areas of 
railroad signaling and electrification technology that are out pacing 
the content of existing Federal standards.
    For fiscal year 1999, track research activities were consolidated 
and focused into two main sub activities, namely Track & Components 
Safety and Track-Train Interaction Safety, as indicated by the above 
summary table and in accordance with FRA's draft 5-year R&D strategic 
plan. Research activities within the more applied Inspection-Detection 
program were integrated with their traditionally more theoretical and 
fundamental counterparts in the Track & Components or Track-Train 
Interaction programs to accelerate the rate of technology 
implementation into products and systems for improved track safety 
inspection and hazard detection. The latter were renamed Track & 
Components Safety and Track-Train Interaction Safety to reflect this 
focus.
                       results of track research
    Question. How did the results of the fiscal year 1997 research help 
FRA and the rail industry?
    Answer. Much has been gained from the track research and test 
activities that were completed in fiscal year 1997. The most notable 
accomplishments and their benefit to FRA and to the railroad industry 
can be summarized as follows:
    Track Safety Standards.--In 1997, work within a government-
industry-labor effort under the auspices of the Rail Safety Advisory 
Committee was continued to accelerate the development of revised track 
safety standards for all present classes of track, as well as new 
standards for high-speed tracks. This effort culminated into the 
issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) covering in detail 
the proposed revised track safety rules and soliciting public comments. 
This process was greatly influenced and guided by results from research 
completed in fiscal year 1997. One example was the inclusion of 
performance-based standards for track gage strength based on results 
from the R&D gage widening research and test program using the Gage 
Restraint Measurement System (GRMS). Other results from R&D activities 
in fiscal year 1997 have led to significant contributions to the 
development of new high-speed track geometry and vehicle-track 
interaction safety standards. Research results also provided further 
important refinements to earlier drafted revisions and identified other 
areas in need of further revisions.
    Top-of-Rail Lubrication.--Cooperative full-scale testing both at 
the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) at Pueblo as well as on 
revenue service tracks were conducted to examine the safety and energy 
reduction benefits of a newly developed top-of-rail lubrication system. 
The system applies a specially engineered water-based consumable 
lubricant behind the last locomotive to reduce wheel/rail friction 
under the remainder of the train. Both the railroad industry and the 
Department of Energy participated with FRA in funding these tests. 
Initial results indicate significant reductions in lateral forces and 
in energy consumption with no impact on braking distances. Additional 
testing is planned in fiscal year 1999 to examine other safety aspects 
of this lubrication technology such as influence on vehicle hunting and 
operations on steep grades.
    Track Buckling.--Full-scale buckling testing on wood and concrete 
tie tracks has provided needed data for validation of models developed 
to predict track buckling behavior. Newly developed remote sensing 
systems for the measurement of rail longitudinal force were designed 
and installed on the high tonnage and the high-speed rail tracks at the 
TTC for performance testing and for continued safety monitoring and 
buckling prevention. Analytical tools were developed for predicting 
track lateral shift due to vehicle and thermal loads. Parametric 
studies were conducted to develop safety concepts and criteria for 
mitigation of excessive lateral alignment defects. Significant 
reductions in the number of accidents attributed to track buckling have 
been seen since this research began. Additional work is still needed 
for further development of analytical tools and for the development of 
a risk-based buckling safety assessment methods.
    Gage Restraint.--An ongoing effort in fiscal year 1997, is 
application of the GRMS developed by the FRA to measure the ability of 
track to maintain gage under service load conditions. In 1997, the GRMS 
continued to gain acceptance as a mature technology resulting in the 
development of performance-based track safety standards for cross tie 
inspection and replacement in collaboration with both industry and 
labor. Similar systems based on this FRA developed prototype have been 
acquired by at least two major railroads and continue to be used for 
locating areas of track with weak or unsafe gage restraint. FRA's 
longer range GRMS testing continued on a range of railroad operations 
including short lines and regional railroads to ensure that crosstie 
replacements are being installed in areas of maximum risk for wide-gage 
derailments from weak ties.
    Heavy Axle Loads.--During fiscal year 1997, an additional 100 
million gross tons of traffic have been accumulated under the third 
phase of accelerated testing at the TTC. The objective of this phase is 
to assess track safety and performance under 125-ton cars equipped with 
improved suspension systems. Results from more than 200 million gross 
tons of traffic accumulated under these loads continue to indicate a 
potential enhancement to safety from the improved suspension due to 
reductions in lateral loads and fatigue related rail defects. Ongoing 
experiments on rail grinding practices and their impact on rail wear 
and fatigue were continued. In addition, a bridge deck was installed on 
the heavy tonnage loop to examine safety hazards at bridge approaches 
and methods for their mitigation.
    Rail Steel Integrity.--Work continued at the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center on analytical and test methods to support 
delayed remedial action for non-critical defects as an alternative 
testing strategy. Results from this work provided valuable input to a 
waiver application to the Office of Safety from a Class I railroad 
requesting modifications to existing FRA rules on rail defect 
inspection. Continued research also provided valuable insight into the 
phenomena of crack generation and growth rates under a variety of 
conditions of instantaneous and cumulative tonnage burden as well as 
various methods of rail conditions. The knowledge gained from these 
multi-year research projects that have recently come to fruition will 
now be employed in devising rail flaw inspection revisit protocols and 
in generating test procedures for assessing rail lubrication and 
grinding strategies and their influence on the growth of fatigue-
induced cracks in the rail head. Collaborated with the railroad 
industry on the construction of a new rail defect test facility at the 
TTC in which various rail samples with known internal defects were 
installed for testing purposes. The facility has been used to evaluate 
current inspection equipment and will be used in fiscal year 1999 to 
comparatively test at least two new rail inspection technologies.
                            maglev research
    Question. Were any funds spent in fiscal year 1998 on maglev safety 
research? If so, how were those funds used? Are any maglev projects in 
progress at his time?
    Answer. No funding for maglev safety was appropriated in fiscal 
year 1998 and nothing was spent on maglev safety research in fiscal 
year 1998. FRA has no maglev projects in progress, other than 
monitoring the maglev projects of other agencies, specifically the 
maglev upgrade of the Holloman Air Force Base high speed test track.
                    fiscal year 1999 maglev funding
    Question. Please describe in detail how the requested $150,000 
program funds for maglev systems evaluations would be utilized?
    Answer. FRA has the responsibility for the safety of high-speed 
ground transportation systems, including maglev. FRA plans to use $150 
thousand to fund the assessment of current maglev systems for safety 
and to cooperate with the on-going maglev programs of the Air Force, 
Navy, and NASA by exploring ways of deriving civilian sector benefits 
from the activities during the course of the research.
                 source of high-speed rail safety data
    Question. An increase of $150,000 is requested in the subarea 
``high-speed rail safety,'' for dissemination of information on 
reliability, safety records, and maintenance costs of high-speed rail 
systems. From what high-speed rail operations will the data for this 
information be derived? Is this a representative enough sampling for 
dissemination?
    Answer. The high-speed rail industry is diverse in its engineering 
characteristics and global in extent. Thus, many exemplars of 
Accelerail (with top speeds ranging from 90 to 150 mph) and New High-
Speed Rail (with top speeds over approximately 150 mph) exist in key 
industrialized nations of the world. Sweden, Italy, France, Spain, 
Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, the United State, and others 
operate one or more high-speed rail technologies. All these countries, 
plus some others which are witnessing ongoing development of high-speed 
rail, will provide the basis for this study. Indeed, the first task of 
this effort will be a complete overview of the then-current status of 
high-speed rail development and of the likely sources of objective 
data. For example, the FRA will seek critical information from the 
International Union of Railways (UIC), as well as the Ministries of 
Transport and railway operators of the countries involved. Additional 
objectivity will be provided because some technologies are genuinely 
international: the French TGV provides the technology for the Spanish 
``AVE,'' and the Spanish TALGO has operated in France, Switzerland, and 
elsewhere, in addition to the United States. Although manufacturers' 
data will be considered, to the extent that data can be had from 
countries not directly involved in the marketing of particular types of 
equipment, the credibility of the study will be enhanced. In addition, 
there exists an active and independent railway press in many countries, 
which can be surveyed to determine whether the various claims of the 
parties involved reflect public perceptions of equipment reliability 
and costs. By developing a systematic study design, making use of 
multiple sources of information, and addressing all the most prominent 
high-speed rail venues and equipment types (not excluding activities in 
America) that would be of relevance to foreseeable State needs and 
desires, FRA expects to extract data of extraordinary utility that will 
merit wide dissemination among the States.
                        sale of aluminum at ttc
    Question. Please detail the situation at the TTC in Pueblo, 
Colorado that led to the inclusion of the requested bill language that 
will allow FRA to sell old reaction rail aluminum for scrap. What is 
the estimated worth of this rail? How would the sale proceeds be 
credited?
    Answer. FRA has determined that the aluminum reaction rail at the 
TTC is an unused asset that could be sold to raise funds for needed 
capital improvements at the TTC. Since the aluminum has not been 
appraised, and costs related to the sale are unknown at this time, it 
is difficult to provide a net worth. For presentation purposes, FRA has 
included an estimate of $1 million in the fiscal year 1999 budget. 
Funds would be credited to R&D as reimbursable authority.
                     facilities restoration at ttc
    Question. What is the status of facilities restoration at TTC?
    Answer. Various projects related to TTC facilities' restoration 
and/or upgrade were initiated or completed in fiscal year 1997. A 
number of other projects are planned for fiscal year 1998-1999. These 
projects are summarized below by fiscal year.
Projects Completed or Initiated in fiscal year 1997
    Center Services Building.--Construction of the Locomotive Fueling 
and Servicing Facility was completed, and put in use. This included 
servicing locomotives with diesel fuel, bulk oil dispensing, used oil 
collection, and water dispensing.
    Catenary Restoration Project.--Numerous items needed to restore the 
system to a good operating condition were completed. This construction 
work included replacing damaged components, installation of two phase 
breaks to provide dual voltage capability around the test loop, and 
hardware adjustments.
    RTT Substation Restoration.--RTT Substation Restoration Project 
work was completed. This work included inspections, testing, corrective 
maintenance, and installation of a replacement power system monitoring, 
and metering system.
    DC Rectifier Substations.--Work was initiated to modify the DC 
Rectifier Substations for the Transit Test Track. Design work has been 
completed and construction started to correct safety problems, increase 
current and voltage capabilities, and link the two substations for 
controlled load sharing.
    RTT Upgrade.--Railroad Test Track upgrade project was substantially 
completed. All ties on the 13.5 mile test loop have been replaced with 
new concrete or treated hardwood ties with elastic fasteners using a 
Fairmont Tamper automated tie replacement system. Work included ballast 
undercutting in the concrete tie zones and replacement with new granite 
ballast. The track was surfaced/lined to exceed FRA class 6 track 
standards. The successful completion of this project is an important 
milestone in FRA's efforts to prepare for the testing Amtrak's American 
Flyer trainsets at TTC in early 1999 before their entry into revenue 
service later that year at 150 mph on the Northeast Corridor.
    Environmental Audit and Pollution Prevention.--A comprehensive 
environmental audit of the TTC was conducted and the results documented 
in a formal report. Based on these results, a comprehensive Pollution 
Prevention Program has been developed. The purpose of this project is 
to develop and actively implement policies and procedure to meet the 
Federal government goals to (1) publicly report toxic waste and 
emissions, (2) to reduce toxic releases by at least 50 percent by 1999, 
and otherwise meet the requirements of Executive Order 12856.
Fiscal Year 1998 Planned Projects
    Restore Site Radio Communications System.--TTC has an 8 channel 
radio communications system installed in the early 1970's. The system 
was overhauled in 1978, with 2 of the channels converted to repeater 
channels due to communication problems with outlying areas within the 
facility. All of the 8 base station modular equipment is obsolete in 
terms of obtaining replacement parts. Two of the 8 units are currently 
non-functional, and the 2 repeater station units are starting to fail 
from continuous duty heat. This work is to perform a partial 
refurbishment of the existing system to restore an 8 channel operation. 
It includes replacing 5 of the base units with repeater station 
capability, replacement of the 2 time coder transmitters, upgrading the 
standby battery power system, upgrading the base station 
instrumentation cabinets and associated wiring, and upgrading the 
software control package so that the system is in a full functional 
condition.
    CSB Wheel Truing Machine Restoration.--The existing Heigenscheidt 
Manufactured, Wheel Truing Machine in the Center Services Building 
(CSB) requires a limited overhaul to restore and improve current wheel 
truing tolerance capabilities. The planned restoration work involves 
system upgrades by rebuilding the longitudinal and cross slides, 
cylinders, way liners and gibs. It also includes upgrading the feed 
system by replacing the obsolete feed pump system and installing new 
servo control valves , and rebuilding of the lifting cylinders to the 
wheel lift, and trouble shoot/repair as needed to restore the machine 
to good, serviceable operation.
    FRA Heavy Equipment Upgrades.--This project is to replace existing 
FRA equipment critical for test program support that are beyond their 
useful economic lives. The planned replacement units are a 50 to 75 ton 
rated mobile crane, 3 to 3.5 CY rated front end loader, and a 14' 
moldboard/185 hp min rated, motor grader.
    Roof Restoration on TTC Buildings.--This project is to continue 
with the phased roof replacement program for TTC Buildings. The planned 
work is to replace, or repair and reroof, as necessary the built-up 
roof systems of Rectifier Substation No. 2, Urban Rail Building, and 
Operations Building Kitchen/Cafeteria low bay roof.
    Preliminary Design of CSB Lead Wye Track.--The Railroad Test Track 
has become a high demand test loop for testing, and will become even 
more so with the high-speed test programs associated with Amtrak and 
RTRI in the near future. Access to the track for logistics moves are 
becoming more disruptive to test activities, with maintenance and 
service activities using the core area facilities. In addition, long 
range planning has identified the proposed CSB Lead Wye Track as a 
proposed access for a future project maintenance facility for high-
speed testing. The Wye track also would access an unlimited area to 
develop a more permanent area for intermodal container and material 
lading staging that is central to the core area for support and 
logistics. This initial phase of the project is to perform preliminary 
design work for a Wye Track off of the CSB Lead track that is 
expandable for the above referenced facility. The work includes a 
topographic survey of the proposed alignment and facility development 
area, track alignment and profile drawings, and a budget estimate for a 
phased construction program.
Fiscal Year 1999 Planned Projects
    Roof Replacements on Support Buildings.--Funding will continue the 
ongoing roof replacement for numerous major buildings at the TTC. Many 
buildings have their original roofs, which are beyond their economic 
lives. The roofs must be replaced in an orderly fashion to avoid leaks 
and damages to building interiors and equipment.
                          funding of t-6 work
    Question. Did FRA perform any upgrade work on the T-6 track 
inspection car and on-board track inspection equipment in fiscal year 
1998? If so, what funds went toward this effort? What was the source of 
these funds?
    Answer. No significant upgrade work was performed in fiscal year 
1998 on the mechanical or structural parts of the T-6 car itself. The 
FRA has elected not to reprogram any of the fiscal year 1998 funds for 
this purpose due to the potential negative impact on other planned 
research activities. However, funds were expended on various mechanical 
repairs and maintenance activities in order to keep the inspection 
system operational. Additional maintenance is planned by the end of 
fiscal year 1998. A modest upgrade was performed on some of the 
instrumentation and data collection systems housed inside the T-6 car 
to support various track safety inspection technology projects 
including track degradation, track vertical stiffness measurement, and 
track data alignment system. The source of these funds was the 
Inspection-Detection subprogram.
    It should be noted that the over fifty-year old T-6 car, which 
houses most of the instrumentation and all the data collection systems, 
is rapidly deteriorating and thus requiring more frequent repairs and 
maintenance. Due to the increasing repair costs and other 
inefficiencies associated with test scheduling, as well as the FRA R&D 
Five-year Strategic Plan requirements, a recent study has concluded 
that current instrumentation and inspection equipment be migrated to a 
new state-of-the-art track research platform replacing the T-6 car.
                  fiscal year 1999 funding for the t-6
    Question. What funds are requested for the T-6 upgrade effort in 
fiscal year 1999? Will this funding complete the T-6 upgrade?
    Answer. FRA is requesting $500,000 in fiscal year 1999 for a T-6 
replacement. This funding, however, will not complete the T-6 upgrade. 
It will provide adequate funding to complete the design of a 
replacement state-of-the-art track research platform, proceed with 
competitive procurement and ordering of long lead items so that the new 
research platform will be available for service in mid-2000.
    A formal study has been conducted into the feasibility of upgrading 
or replacing the T-6 research vehicle. Based on the findings of this 
study, it is recommended that the T-6 be replaced with a new research 
platform, for reasons of both economy and R&D program requirements as 
delineated in the Office of R&D's Five-Year Strategic Plan, and to 
improve substantially FRA's safety inspection capability by taking 
advantage of new technologies.
    The estimated cost of the replacement track research platform 
according to this study is about $3.5 million, including $500,000 
requested in fiscal year 1999.
                         upgrade or replace t-6
    Question. Please provide a cost/benefit analysis of costs to repair 
and upgrade the T-6 versus costs to replace the T-6 track inspection 
car.
    Answer. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC) 
has conducted a formal feasibility study on the upgrade or replacement 
of the T-6 inspection research vehicle. The study investigated 
available options for meeting the requirements of the track safety 
research program delineated in the FRA's draft 5-year R&D Strategic 
Plan. The two options considered were the upgrade of the T-6 car and 
its replacement with a new state-of-the-art track research platform. In 
addition, the replacement option involved two alternatives (towed or 
self-propelled) to be considered during the design phase. The costs of 
upgrade or replacement are comparable, estimated at about $3.5 million. 
The annual savings as a direct result of upgrade or replacement is 
estimated at about $550,000. Based on these feasibility study figures, 
the investment in the T-6 upgrade or construction costs would be 
recovered in less than five years. This conservative analysis does not 
include the qualitative benefit from a much improved inspection 
capability during the same period. The two tables below summarizing the 
costs and savings are reproduced from the referenced VNTSC study.

                   SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR UPGRADE OR REPLACEMENT THE T-6 TRACK RESEARCH VEHICLE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Replacement
                     Primary cost categories                          Upgrade    -------------------------------
                                                                                       Towed      Self-propelled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction/Upgrade Costs......................................      $2,609,500      $2,834,500      $3,084,500
Usage Loss of the Research Vehicle..............................         450,000  ..............  ..............
Annual Operational Costs........................................          95,000          91,000          84,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Costs for Five-year Window..........................       3,534,500       3,289,500       3,504,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Summary of Estimated Annual Savings

                                                               Estimated
        Cost saving categories                                   savings
Research Support..............................................  $150,000
Technical Support.............................................    50,000
Operational Efficiencies......................................   275,000
Research Delays...............................................    75,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   550,000
                        status of 1-800 project
    Question. Last year, FRA stated that a contract would be in place 
to develop and establish a computerized 1-800 telephone number call-in 
facility. Has this contract been finalized yet? If so, has the program 
been implemented yet? If not, why?
    Answer. The Swift Rail Development Act required a state-based 
emergency notification system. Based on recent actions taken by the 
railroads, FRA believes a railroad-based emergency notification system 
would have more universal potential than would demonstrations in just 
two states and should result in quicker and wider application, thus 
achieving Congress and FRA's safety goals in a more favorable time 
frame. Therefore, as noted in the budget request, FRA requests 
sufficient flexibility to foster and demonstrate a system which will be 
more railroad-oriented and would take full advantage of railroad 
initiatives already underway.
    The following highlights the history of this project:
    The 1994 Action Plan established the need for a toll-free crossing 
automated trouble reporting system. In September 1994, a contract was 
awarded to develop a conceptual design and implementation plan. This 
effort was completed and the ``Conceptual Design & Implementation 
Plan'' was provided in a Final Report dated May 19, 1995.
    However, the Swift Rail Development Act of October 1994 directed 
the Secretary to demonstrate a toll free emergency notification system 
to report emergencies, malfunctions and other safety problems, and to 
conduct a pilot program in two states. The requirement for an emergency 
system is not compatible with the originally conceived automated 
trouble reporting system for which the Design Plan was based. Because 
the Swift Act requires emergency notification of situations at highway-
rail crossings, both the current ``Design Concept & Implementation 
Plan'' and a previously developed work statement must be revised. This 
revision and a reevaluation are necessary due to the non-compatible 
requirements.
    The Swift Act did not appropriate funds for this project. The 
program effort was delayed for a year waiting for funding to be 
identified. In 1996, the funds for development of system hardware and 
the conduct of a two-State pilot program were appropriated by Congress. 
The current funding ($625,000) does not provide for the installation of 
signs at each crossing, nor the public education and awareness program, 
nor the final Report to Congress.
    Preliminary discussions were held with the States of Illinois and 
Minnesota regarding the pilot project. FRA's goal was to involve two 
States which would be representative of both urban and rural states, 
i.e., one of each. In February 1997, the FRA Administrator sent a 
letter to all States inviting them to participate in the mandatory two-
State pilot test program. FRA received responses from just four states 
who indicated an interest in the program.
    In the meantime, FRA's 1989 evaluation report on the State of 
Texas' 1-800 program concluded that approximately half of all calls 
received provided useful information to improve the operation of 
automated warning devices. In 1996, several major railroads, at their 
own expense, started to install signs at crossings with a 1-800 number 
for reporting malfunctions and/or emergencies. Some railroads are 
installing these at all of their public and private crossings, some are 
installing these at only the public crossings and some are installing 
them at only the active crossings (those with gates and/or flashing 
lights). Preliminary discussions were held with the railroads to 
evaluate methods for incorporating their 1-800 Number Systems into the 
overall system planned for the two pilot states. Currently, it appears 
that by Spring of 1998, 1-800 Number Emergency Notification Signs will 
be installed by railroads at approximately 62,123 of the 162,426 public 
at-grade crossings (38.2 percent) on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, 
Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, CSX Transportation and Illinois 
Central Railroads. This is also 67 percent of all the active crossings 
in the nation (active includes gates, flashing lights, wigwags, highway 
signals and/or bells). CSX Transportation is a good case in point. 
Following an Amtrak passenger train collision with a truck immobilized 
on a crossing, FRA and CSX Transportation collaborated in the 
development of a Safety Action Agreement which committed CSX 
Transportation to placing signs with a 1-800 number at all crossings 
and to train dispatch center personnel in the proper handling of 
incoming calls. Crossings on passenger and high-volume hazardous 
materials routes will all be `signed' by May 1998, and all CSX 
Transportation crossings will be included by May 1999.
    FRA is committed to achieve the objective of the Action Plan and 
Swift Rail Development Act by developing, implementing and evaluating a 
1-800 toll-free malfunction and emergency notification telephone 
system. However, the only way to achieve emergency notification is to 
establish centralized manned centers to receive calls. While this still 
requires a telephone system for taking such calls and a system for fast 
and efficient identification of the crossing and its exact location, it 
is not compatible with the automated approach originally conceived. A 
manned center would probably need to be either a railroad's or in a 
police command center (like the State of Texas has established). (FRA 
does not recommend that the Federal government or its contractor take 
on this responsibility.) State legislation may be required to implement 
such a system in a state that requires the State Police Command Center 
to perform this activity.
    FRA proposes to work with the railroads to assume this 
responsibility, i.e., installing signs with 1-800 numbers that directly 
reach their train dispatch offices. What is currently missing is an 
overall comprehensive program which addresses all crossings on all 
railroads, large and small. (Even the Texas system does not include 
signs at passive or private crossings.) FRA believes that it may be 
possible to supplement railroad systems already in place or planned for 
the major railroads by developing and implementing regional systems for 
those crossings not already included in a railroad system. It appears 
very possible that this can be done in more than only two pilot states 
and thereby achieve greater coverage with the funds that have been 
appropriated.
    FRA's goal is to have a contract in place by mid-1998 to develop 
the necessary software packages to accomplish these goals. The initial 
development of this project was started with fiscal year 1995 funds, 
and of the current $626,000 fiscal year 1996 funds appropriated, 
$350,000 will be used by the end of fiscal year 1998 and the balance of 
$275,000 will be used in fiscal year 1999.
                   state investment in 1-800 project
    Question. How will FRA promote State investment in this approach to 
improving grade crossing safety?
    Answer. FRA is evaluating different approaches to the ``1-800 
Emergency Notification System.'' Railroads, which are voluntarily 
installing highway-rail grade crossing emergency notification systems, 
are extending coverage to all crossings, not just public crossings. 
Highway-rail grade crossings with automated warning systems are the 
typical target of State-based systems. Soon, nearly half of all public 
crossings will be equipped or covered by ``1-800 telephone and crossing 
identification numbers'' to report emergency or routine problems.
    To promote continued investment in these systems, FRA plans to: (1) 
Encourage railroads with 24-hour operations to post their own 1-800 
signs and to handle such calls through their 24-hour operations center; 
(2) Provide seed funding for regional contract arrangements whereby 
smaller railroads would use the services of the larger railroads for 
responding to calls and/or encouraging American Short Line Railroad 
Association participation in establishing regional contract services; 
(3) Develop software for maintaining a railroad or State 1-800 System 
with crossing inventory data geographically located, including a GIS 
platform, and developing an automated mapping technique to identify the 
location of a crossing with a reported problem; and (4) Encourage 
updating of the National Crossing Inventory (a necessity for 
identifying the exact location of a crossing with a posted crossing 
number).
    When the system software is developed, it will be made available to 
States and railroads at no cost. Additionally, the Federal Highway 
Administration has approved the use of Surface Transportation Program 
Funds from the safety set-aside portion of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Act (Section 130) for the required signage. Full 
implementation will take approximately two years.
                       csx grade crossing efforts
    Question. In the wake of an October 9, 1997 collision involving an 
Amtrak train operating on CSX-owned track and a ``lowboy'' trailer that 
got hung-up on a grade crossing near Savannah, Georgia, CSX has 
committed to a substantial effort to install grade crossing signage 
that precisely identifies the crossing and provides a toll-free 
emergency notification number. Please outline FRA's involvement in this 
effort. Is CSX working through FRA's ongoing emergency notification 
program? Are any federal funds supporting CSX's implementation of grade 
crossing signage on its property? Are all CSX owned crossings to be so 
identified? What is the status of the CSX effort?
    Answer. Following the Amtrak passenger train collision with an 
immobilized tractor-trailer truck (lowboy) at a highway-rail grade 
crossing on October 9, 1997, CSX Transportation (CSXT) executed a 
Safety Action Agreement with FRA. CSXT agreed to place emergency 
notification signs with a ``1-800 Telephone Number and Grade Crossing 
Identifier'' at all highway-rail grade crossings. In addition, train 
dispatch center personnel will be trained in the proper procedures to 
follow when receiving these calls. This established a system-wide ``1-
800 Number System'' on CSXT. All public crossings on passenger and 
high-volume hazardous materials routes will be `signed' by May 1998. 
All remaining public and all private CSXT crossings will be `signed' by 
May 1999. CSXT's efforts are separate from FRA's ongoing emergency 
notification program. However, provisions are being made to integrate 
CSXT's system into the National emergency notification program.
    FRA is monitoring CSXT's compliance with the Safety Action 
Agreement. FRA also provided technical assistance regarding CSXT's 1-
800 Number initiative. There are no Federal funds being used for this 
effort; all funding is provided by the Railroad.
    As of March 1998, 14,815 highway-rail grade crossings, 62 percent 
of the effort, was complete. CSXT has notified trucking companies about 
this initiative through Operation Lifesaver Presentations. Law 
enforcement agencies, fire departments and schools also have been 
notified about this initiative. The CSX train dispatch center has added 
additional staff to handle the expanded database management effort for 
computerized mapping of crossing locations. FRA is monitoring 
compliance with the agreement during its continuous, open-ended, Safety 
Assurance and Compliance Program safety audit of CSXT.
              availability of high-speed rail in the u.s.
    Question. As compared to five years ago, how much closer today is 
the Nation to having a reliable, cost-effective, and safe high-speed 
passenger rail transportation system?
    Answer. High-Speed passenger rail service (125 mph) has been 
available on the Northeast Corridor between NY City and Washington for 
the past 5 years. Service with trains capable of 150 mph all the way 
from Boston to Washington with much improved reliability and 
attractiveness and a quantum decrease in trip time between Boston and 
NY City should be available before 2000.
    Elsewhere in the U.S., the picture is mixed. For the past 5 years, 
Florida has been working on an effort to award a competitive franchise 
for a high-speed rail system. The State has now selected a franchisee 
for a 200 mph system and is much closer to implementation, subject to 
development of a successful financial plan and environmental clearance. 
California is starting a similar process.
    In Michigan, Illinois, New York, the Pacific NW, North Carolina, 
and Virginia, thanks in part to the States' own financial efforts and 
in part to collaboration with FRA's Next Generation Technology Program, 
affordable incremental high-speed rail improvements are near reality. 
California has spent hundreds of millions of its own dollars in 
improving service.
                       ost/omb requests for nghsr
    Question. What amounts for each of the NGHSR Program components 
were originally requested of OST and OMB?
    Answer. The information is contained in the following table:

       FISCAL YEAR 1999 NEXT GENERATION HSR PROGRAM BUDGET HISTORY
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Request to--
                                  -------------------------- President's
                                       OST          OMB         budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Electric Locomotive..........        8,000        6,000        6,800
Grade Crossing Hazards...........        7,500        4,500        4,000
Track and Structures.............        3,500        1,500        1,200
Technical Assistance.............          500  ...........  ...........
Administration...................          593          594          594
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................       20,093       12,594       12,594
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       decrease in nghsr funding
    Question. The fiscal year 1999 request for NGHSR is $7,801,000 
below the fiscal year 1998 enacted level of $20,395,000, a decrease of 
almost 40 percent. Does this sharply decreased request reflect a 
sharply decreased level of commitment on the administration's part for 
the development and demonstration of cost-effective high-speed 
passenger rail in the U.S.?
    Answer. The reduction in requested funding is a result of 
circumstances in implementing major projects in the program and 
reflects no decreased commitment on the part of the Administration. The 
Administration's level of interest is reflected in the proposal for 
ISTEA reauthorization which supports NGHSR technology development 
activities at a level of $19.6 million annually.
    The fiscal year 1999 NGHSR request reflects the completion of 
several projects in fiscal year 1998 and no funding for positive train 
control in fiscal year 1999 due to balances already available.
                       fiscal years 1995-99 nghsr
    Question. Please provide a NGHSR account breakout table by budget 
activity and project, showing appropriated levels in fiscal years 1995, 
1996, 1997, 1998, and requested for 1999.
    Answer. The information is contained in the following table.

                                 NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROGRAM FUNDING
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1995       1996       1997       1998       1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive Train Control...................................      8,500      9,000      4,000      3,750  .........
Non-Electric Locomotives.................................      6,500      8,998      9,000      9,300      6,800
Lightweight Materials....................................        500  .........  .........  .........  .........
Innovative Technology....................................      1,500  .........  .........  .........  .........
Grade Crossing Hazards & Innovative Technologies.........  .........      4,500      4,959      5,600      4,000
Corridor Planning........................................      5,000  .........  .........  .........  .........
National Transportation Plan.............................      2,500  .........  .........  .........  .........
Track/Structures Technology..............................  .........  .........      6,500      1,200      1,200
Planning Technology......................................  .........      1,250      1,250  .........  .........
Administration...........................................        368        379        426        545        594
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................     24,868     24,127     26,135     20,395     12,594
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      trb recommendations of nghsr
    Question. Please prepare an analysis of how FRA responded to each 
of the major recommendations of the TRB to improve the NGHSR program.
    Answer. The three major recommendations of TRB were: were (1) 
reduce the number of corridors where demonstrations of positive train 
control are underway; (2) treat the fly-wheel project as long-term 
research, which may not produce any usable results, and as a result 
terminate the program; and (3) focus the grade crossing efforts on 
practical, low-cost and low-tech risk reduction technologies. FRA has 
already responded to these and other comments and recommendations by 
the TRB Committee in a letter dated January 14, 1998, (attached) which 
made some of the following points:
    (1) FRA is pursuing only two train control projects in the Next 
Generation program, in Michigan, and in Illinois. (The Pacific 
Northwest project is a multi-million dollar effort of BNSF and UP. FRA 
is involved as a monitor, and our financial involvement is minimal, 
peripheral, and limited to particular components and Congressional 
earmarks.) Continued FRA involvement is justified in both of these 
projects, which represent significantly different approaches to train 
control. No funds are requested in fiscal year 1999, as previous 
funding provided is sufficient to continue work in fiscal year 1999.
    (2) FRA followed the TRB Committee's recommendation with regard to 
the high-speed non-electric locomotive and have solicited proposals. 
Rather than terminating the flywheel project, FRA carefully structured 
its relationship to the locomotive project in a way that would not 
endanger the success of locomotive development if the (admittedly more 
risky) flywheel were to run into unexpected technical difficulty.
    Congress has directed funding for the flywheel project. To date, 
there have not been any major setbacks. It carries with it considerable 
interest and prior investment in component technologies from the 
defense community along with opportunity for further leverage. It has 
potential applicability in a number of routes requiring enhanced 
acceleration because of curved track or frequent stops without 
requiring additional energy consumption. FRA's fiscal year 1999 budget 
request includes funding for both projects.
    (3) FRA agrees with the Committee's endorsement of the North 
Carolina sealed corridor approach to grade crossing risk reduction 
because it validates cost-effective, simple new approaches. However, 
more sophisticated technologies such as the ``arrestor net'' will be 
needed in some locations and must be tested. FRA is working towards a 
generic, risk-based approach taking into account increased risks 
associated with high-speed, and cost-effective solutions to deal with 
the grade crossing issues on a corridor-wide basis. FRA has begun a 
broad review of all of its grade crossing research and will reallocate 
resources if appropriate.
    [The letter follows:]
   Letter From Jolene M. Molitoris, Administrator, Federal Railroad 
                             Administration
                                  Office the Administrator,
                                Washington, D.C., January 14, 1998.
Dr. Joseph M. Sussman,
JR East Professor and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 
        Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
    Dear Dr. Sussman: Thank you for your letter of December 23, 1997, 
setting forth the findings and recommendation of the TRB Committee for 
an Assessment of High-Speed Ground Transportation Research and 
Development. I would like to respond to the Committee's comments. To 
begin with, I wish to address the three principal issues you raised at 
our recent meeting and to follow with a discussion of the remaining 
points in your letter. Our responses, in italics, update the PTC and 
locomotive projects reported to the Committee in October and provide 
additional information to clarify points in your report.
    Three principal issues:
1. Whether the results of FRA's program will be generally applicable.
    The Committee has been concerned that because FRA's program is less 
a research program than ``a collection of technology demonstration 
projects, many of which are site-specific in their application'' and 
because ``each demonstration project is designed to maximize the 
benefit to [a particular] State'', then the program results would not 
be generally applicable.
    In our letter of May 28, 1997, in responding to similar criticism, 
we explained that most of our funding comes from the Next Generation 
program under the Swift Act, which calls for ``improvement adaptation 
and integration of proven technologies for commercial application . . 
.'' rather than ``research and development'' and that the State 
participation not only brings additional funding to the table but also 
increases the likelihood of implementation that goes beyond the 
demonstration, at least in that State. The Committee now points out 
that FRA's program is also authorized under Section 1036(a) of ISTEA, 
which permits research as well as demonstrations. While this is true, 
the first really significant funding came after the enactment of the 
Swift Act, and we chose to structure the program primarily around 
demonstrations.
    The stated goal of the Next Generation High Speed Rail Technology 
program is to accelerate the implementation of high speed rail by 
testing and demonstrating technologies that reduce the implementation 
cost on existing railroads without compromising safety. Let us consider 
examples in the two important areas of positive train control and non-
electric locomotives:
    The PTC technology projects are designed to provide the equivalent 
safety of track circuit based cab signal and automatic train control at 
a much lower cost using radio based systems than we were required to 
invest in the Northeast Corridor. We now have underway projects 
involving both an overlay system (in Michigan) and a generic central 
control PTC system (in Illinois). A State with an existing signal 
system will have a choice of implementing either concept in a wide 
variety of situations.
    The non-electric locomotive projects are designed to provide 
propulsion equivalent to what has been available through electric 
locomotives on the Northeast Corridor, but at much lower cost. Here 
again, we have two approaches--one based on upgrade of an existing 
design (the Turboliner upgrade) and another based on a new design (the 
current cooperative agreement procurement just announced). While it is 
true that the former (which was earmarked by Congress) may be a 
realistic option for only a very limited number of vehicles, the 
concepts to be demonstrated after the upgrade, such as 125 mph running, 
improved acceleration, and concomitant treatment of grade crossings, 
are applicable in other corridors. We strongly believe the new non-
electric locomotive program will result in a product which will be 
applicable in any high-speed corridor.
    As to the further question of general applicability, we believe 
that States or other high speed project sponsors are more likely to act 
on the basis of a successful technology demonstration than on the basis 
of a research result. Furthermore, we also believe that our policy of 
seeking the involvement of equipment suppliers as partners is also 
likely to increase implementation. Whether the result of a research 
project or a demonstration, it is always likely that a particular 
solution for one project will not exactly fit in another. In the cases 
noted above, we have tried to span a range of solutions that could 
apply in a number of different projects.
2. Whether our management reorganization of last summer was 
        appropriate.
    The Committee believes that our reorganizations which shifted the 
Next Generation program from the Office of Research and Development to 
the Office of Passenger and Freight Services, ``has actually dispersed 
the management of FRA R&D activities rather than improving the linkage 
between the NGHSR and R&D programs''.
    In a letter of July 25, 1997, Jim McQueen informed you of this 
reorganization and explained that we believed it was time to put 
greater emphasis on implementation of high-speed rail systems sponsored 
by States in cooperation with Amtrak--an activity closer to the mission 
of the Office of Passenger and Freight Services which was already 
involved in oversight of Amtrak, the Northeast Corridor Improvement 
Project and planning and outreach with States in high-speed rail. This 
will help provide more of a customer-based focus to the Next Generation 
efforts, and this, in turn, will help in achieving our mutually shared 
goal of broad applicability of the products of our efforts.
    The same people, at the front line level, will be running the 
program and we do not believe that in an office as small as that of 
Railroad Development with all personnel on the same floor and 
accustomed to communicating frequently among themselves and with 
management we are likely to have a ``dispersal'' problem. With the 
changes, the managers have been more successful at sharpening the focus 
of their respective programs and delivering expected results.
3. Whether the flywheel project should be terminated.
    The Committee recommended this earlier in your May 9 letter, along 
with a recommendation that FRA should proceed promptly with development 
and demonstration of a high-speed non-electric locomotive. You 
reiterated the recommendation to terminate the flywheel project in your 
most recent letter.
    We followed the Committee's recommendation with regard to the high 
speed non-electric locomotive and we recently solicited proposals. 
Rather than terminating the flywheel project, we have carefully 
structured its relationship to the locomotive project in a way that 
would not endanger the success of locomotive development if the 
(admittedly more risky) flywheel were to run into unexpected technical 
difficulty.
    Congress has directed funding for the flywheel project. To date, we 
have not seen any major setbacks. It carries with it considerable 
interest and prior investment in component technologies from the 
defense community along with opportunity for further leverage. It has 
potential applicability in a number of routes requiring enhanced 
acceleration because of curved track or frequent stops without 
requiring additional energy consumption. Indeed, this would seem to be 
the kind of longer term R&D activity which the committee seems to favor 
in other parts of your letter.
    Other Points Raised in December 23 letter:
4. The Committee wants us to reduce the number of train control 
        projects and to focus on safety-critical software development.
    The Committee strongly supports work in this area but recommends 
that FRA reduce the number of corridors with which we are working.
    We already are pursuing only two train control approaches, in 
Michigan and Illinois. (The Pacific Northwest project is a multi-
million dollar effort of BNSF and UP. FRA is involved as a monitor and 
our financial involvement is minimal, peripheral, and limited to 
particular components and Congressional earmarks) Continued effort is 
justified in both of these different approaches.
    The Committee recommends that FRA's primary activity in the train 
control area should be to sponsor a software development program.
    We are concerned that the products of a Government-sponsored 
software program would not be applied by the industry and that we would 
have insufficient funds to complete a comprehensive program. Further, 
we believe that the ultimate objective of train control implementation 
will be achieved much sooner and better by the demonstration approach 
we are pursuing because the major players will be directly involved 
throughout the process. We have brought Union Pacific back to 
participation in the Illinois train control project. The critical 
software favored by the TRB Committee must be developed and validated 
to accomplish this demonstration program, and will be already 
implemented at UP's dispatch control center when the demonstration is 
completed. This is the most effective mechanism to implement the 
technology and provides the necessary justifications to obtain and 
effectively utilize both Federal, state, railroad, and supplier 
resources.
5. The Committee wants us to cease pursuing ``exotic'' technologies for 
        grade crossing safety and to focus on projects such as the 
        ``sealed corridor"
    We agree with the Committee's endorsement of the North Carolina 
sealed corridor approach to grade crossing risk reduction because it is 
validating cost-effective, simple new approaches. However, we disagree 
with the Committee in that we believe that more sophisticated 
technologies such as the ``arrestor net'' will be needed in some 
locations and must be tested. (For your information, the arrestor net 
project was funded under a grade crossing hazard elimination program 
rather than under Next Generation.) We are working toward a generic, 
risk-based approach which takes into account the increased risks 
associated with high speed, and which will indicate the most cost-
effective solutions to deal with the grade crossing issue on a 
corridor-wide basis. We have also recently begun a broad review of all 
of FRA's grade crossing research, and we plan to reallocate resources 
as a result of our findings.
6. The Committee wants us to exercise leadership in getting the 
        railroad industry to implement PTC.
    You state FRA is in a unique position to convene a summit of the 
industry's corporate leaders to forge a partnership for the potential 
implementation of PTC technology. We have already made a start in this 
process by convening the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), 
which would do that very thing in the context of our rulemaking 
authority. But the train control field is enormously complex and 
involves myriad technology choices. Strongly held opinions abound among 
railroads, suppliers, and consultants as to the best approach for each 
piece of the ultimate system. We have sponsored roundtable discussions 
as well as the RSAC, and are seeking consensus wherever we can find it. 
But discussion alone will not resolve the complex choices.
    Concrete demonstrations will definitively move the process forward 
by permitting all participants to evaluate actual performance.
7. The Committee's letter did not comment on what seemed to be good 
        reviews by the customers of our program, who were asked to 
        speak before the Committee.
    I understand that a number of the customer representatives who 
spoke at the Committee's meeting strongly endorsed FRA's approach as it 
applied to their areas of interest but we did not see this reflected in 
the Committee's report.
    As usual we welcome the Committee's frank comments on the FRA 
program in high speed rail technology and we hope that the Committee 
members will continue to follow our program and provide further 
comments even after the Committee formally ends its work later this 
year.
            Sincerely,
                                       Jolene M. Molitoris,
                                                     Administrator.
                   linkage of r&d and nghsr programs
    Question. What steps will FRA take to ensure that the research and 
development program and the NGHSR demonstration programs are more 
closely and explicitly linked together?
    Answer. Both programs are managed by FRA's Office of Railroad 
Development and from the same physical location, affording close 
coordination. The R&D program focuses on research in support of 
railroad safety, both passenger and freight, and the NGHSR program 
focuses on facilitating HSR implementation by making key technologies 
more cost effective and demonstrating them in operation. Some projects 
have elements of both purposes and are closely coordinated. For 
example, the Illinois (NGHSR) positive train control project serves 
both HSR and rail safety in general and is being closely coordinated 
with a PTC (R&D) interoperability project, both with heavy industry 
involvement. FRA plans no further steps for explicit linkage except on 
a project by project basis.
                        nghsr program management
    Question. The TRB recommended that the FRA strengthen its program 
management capabilities to speed up and better control the individual 
projects. How will this be accomplished?
    Answer. Last summer, FRA shifted the Next Generation program from 
the Office of Research and Development to the Office of Passenger and 
Freight Services (P&F). P&F is responsible for the oversight of Amtrak, 
NECIP and planning and outreach with States in high-speed rail. 
Therefore, by shifting the HSR work to this Office, FRA can ensure 
State sponsored high-speed rail systems are in cooperation with Amtrak, 
provide more customer-based focus on Next Generation efforts, and 
achieve broad applicability of products. Given the overall staffing 
constraints, FRA has not been able to increase the size of the program 
management staff.
               status of non-electric locomotive projects
    Question. The fiscal year 1998 Act provided $4,800,000 for work on 
prototype locomotives, including: (a) research on flywheel turbine 
technology; (b) development of non-electric locomotive concepts; and 
(c) evaluation of the potential of the recently developed locomotive 
car bodies at speeds of 150 miles per hour. Please describe the 
progress in each of these three areas of research.
    Answer. To further research on flywheel turbine technology, FRA has 
allocated $1,700,000 of the $4,800,000 to the University of Texas at 
Austin to continue the development of the flywheel energy storage 
battery system, including an advanced, compact, lightweight generator. 
Two \1/3\ scale rotors have now been successfully tested and 
construction of the full-scale flywheel rotor and containment is 
underway. A critical design review for the advanced generator was 
successfully completed in March, 1998, with the first generator 
expected to be completed in Fall, 1998.
    In January, 1998, FRA issued a Notice of Funds Availability in the 
Federal Register seeking qualified locomotive manufacturers to produce 
a turbine-powered high-speed locomotive, capable of 125 mph 
demonstrations in the near term and ultimately capable of 150 mph 
operation, as well as coordination with the Advanced Locomotive 
Propulsion System project at the University of Texas. The solicitation 
closed on March 27. One proposal was received from a qualified 
manufacturer, including significant levels of cost sharing, and FRA 
anticipates successful negotiation of a cooperative agreement in the 
very near future.
         current contracts for non-electric locomotive projects
    Question. What specific contracts have you signed in each of these 
three areas since last year? Please state the purpose of each relevant 
contract along with 1998 funding amount for each contract. How will the 
fiscal year 1999 program continue this initiative?
    Answer. A new project to develop and demonstrate a high-speed 
prototype non-electric locomotive will be awarded later this year 
through a cooperative agreement with funding in the amount of 
$3,000,000. The Notice of Funds Availability for this project closed on 
March 27th and a proposal is currently being reevaluated by FRA with an 
expected award by May. fiscal year 1999 funds requested for this effort 
will support the completion of design work and the start of fabrication 
of the demonstration locomotive.
    The Advanced Locomotive Propulsion Systems project at the 
University of Texas was funded with an additional $3,700,000 through an 
interagency agreement with the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA). This project will develop and demonstrate an advanced 
energy storage flywheel system and compact. lightweight generator for 
rail applications. The fiscal year 1999 program will continue 
development of these technologies including, funding the fabrication of 
additional generator prototypes and testing of the flywheel system and 
engineering efforts to integrate these devices into the high-speed 
demonstration locomotive being developed separately under the Agreement 
described above.
    The New York State Rohr Turboliner (RTL-3) upgrade program will be 
provided with an additional $2,500,000 in Federal funding during fiscal 
year 1998 by amending the existing cooperative agreement. This project 
will upgrade at least 2 of the existing 7 RTL trainsets to achieve 
better performance with modern turbines and equipment for service on 
the Empire corridor between New York and Albany. No fiscal year 1999 
funding is requested for this project.
           status of high-speed non-electric locomotive work
    Question. Regarding the development of high-speed non-electric 
locomotive technologies, please prepare a table indicating separately, 
the status, problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1997, 
fiscal year 1998, and planned fiscal year 1999 FRA investments. Please 
include information on each major FRA project in this program.
    Answer. The information is contained in the following tables:

                                   NON-ELECTRIC HIGH-SPEED LOCOMOTIVE FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1997            1998       1999 (planned)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Locomotive Propulsion Systems..........................      $2,000,000      $2,000,000      $2,000,000
HS Non-Electric Demonstration Locomotive........................  ..............       4,800,000       4,800,000
New York State RTL Upgrade......................................       4,000,000       2,500,000  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              NON-ELECTRIC HIGH-SPEED LOCOMOTIVE STATUS AND ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Status                        Problems and challenges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Locomotive Propulsion Sys-  Prototype flywheel to be completed in  No significant issues at this time.
  tems.                               1998, proof of concept generator to
                                      be completed in 1998.
HS Non-Electric Demonstration        Proposal being evaluated, award        Adequate future funding.
 Locomotive.                          expected May 1998.
New York State RTL Upgrade.........  Upgrades underway, first RTL-3         No significant issues at this time.
                                      trainset expected early CY 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          focus of high-speed non-electric locomotive program
    Question. Where does FRA believe the focus of the non-electric HSR 
locomotive program should be now? How many bids on the current 
solicitation do you expect?
    Answer. FRA has received one responsive bid to the solicitation 
which closed on March 27. The program is moving forward to produce a 
125 mph turbine-powered demonstrator locomotive in the near term, which 
will ultimately be able to receive power from the flywheel energy-
storage system, as well as to operate at 150 mph.
               common design for non-electric locomotive
    Question. How is the non-electric locomotive program developing a 
consensus about a common design that could serve several markets and 
generate sufficient demand? How do the States influence this 
development?
    Answer. FRA continues to consult with the States through periodic 
meetings and contacts. Once a selection is made for a locomotive 
manufacturer, FRA will convene a panel of representatives from the 
states pursuing high-speed service to assure that states' needs are 
most effectively met in the design and manufacture of the prototype.
      challenges in developing high-speed non-electric locomotives
    Question. What are the remaining technical challenges in developing 
non-electric HSR locomotives?
    Answer. The technical challenges continue to be the ability to 
achieve very high traction power levels in compact packages with 
minimal weight, which are affordable to purchase and economical to 
operate, and are reliable in daily revenue service.
                         ny turboliner project
    Question. How much of the fiscal year 1999 monies will be allocated 
to the NY turbo-liner trains program? What would be the next logical 
technological step to advance this program?
    Answer. Through fiscal year 1998, $12.5 million in federal funds 
has been provided for this project. The $2.5 million available in 
fiscal year 1998 has not been obligated. No funds are requested in 
fiscal year 1999. The next logical technological step to achieve 
advanced turbine propulsion is to increase the total available power 
and transmit it to the rail using an alternating-current (AC) traction 
electric transmission system, such as will be employed in the Advanced 
Locomotive Propulsion System project.
              additional cost to complete flywheel project
    Question. How many additional years will be required to complete 
work on the flywheel project? How much will this cost? Please provide 
costs for both development and large-scale testing. What is the 
likelihood that this technology will be commercialized?
    Answer. Three to four additional years will be required to reach a 
full scale demonstration on a railroad consist, depending on funding 
levels for the program. The University of Texas estimates that a total 
of about $7.75 million will be required, including about $7 million for 
development activities and $750,000 for large scale testing.
    There is good likelihood that the technology will be 
commercialized, based on the numerous trip time simulations which have 
already been performed as part of the ongoing project. Tests show the 
ALPS flywheel technology delivering time savings averaging about 15 
percent.
    It is important to consider the relative expenditures needed to 
reduce trip times, since trip time reduction is a primary requirement 
of corridor upgrades where service is already being offered. A useful 
measure for determining the merit of alternative investments is 
``dollars per minute of trip time saved.'' This measure allows a direct 
comparison between the merit of infrastructure investments versus 
rolling stock investments. The incremental investment needed to equip a 
typical corridor with ALPS-based locomotives is estimated at about $5 
million per minute saved. Similar costs per minute saved are currently 
being invested by States to eliminate track curves or other slow 
orders.
    To use electric locomotives, a typical corridor would need to 
invest about $35 million per minute saved (about $150 million total) to 
build the associated electric catenary power supply infrastructure. 
Furthermore, to obtain significant benefits the investment in the 
electrification infrastructure and electric locomotives must be made 
``up-front'', typically for the entire length of the corridor. The ALPS 
approach permits incremental migration to higher speeds as portions of 
the route are upgraded, attaining immediate benefits from each route 
upgrade.
    Successful commercialization of the ALPS propulsion system 
technologies will permit passenger rail corridor operators to attain 
immediate benefits from high-acceleration 125 to 150 mph locomotives on 
an incremental, as needed basis, avoiding the costs of corridor 
electrification while capturing the revenue-generating benefits of 
reduced trip times immediately. Consequently, FRA has received strong 
support for development of this technology from existing corridor 
operators in New York State, North Carolina, Virginia, Illinois, and 
Michigan to name a few.
    Two other key issues which indicate successful commercialization 
potential are the willingness of commercial locomotive manufacturers to 
pursue the development of ALPS technologies, and an industrial producer 
to manufacture them. Both Bombardier Transit Inc. and General Motors 
Electromotive Division have expressed strong interest in applying the 
program results to their locomotives.
    Finally, two divisions of AlliedSignal have been strong 
participants in the program from its inception and continue to support 
these technologies as indicated by their substantial commitment of 
resources to this effort, both in terms of manpower and cost sharing. 
AlliedSignal has expressed strong interest in manufacturing both the 
flywheel battery and turbo-alternator systems.
                     status of the flywheel project
    Question. What is the status of the flywheel project, and what are 
the planned activities for fiscal year 1999? How much is requested for 
fiscal year 1999, and how much was spent in prior years? What is the 
cost sharing arrangement for this project?
    Answer. Construction of the full-scale flywheel battery components 
has begun, based on the success of extensive sub-scale testing which 
validated salient features of the rotor design. Construction is 
underway of the 2.5 Megawatt motor-generator which is needed for the 
turbine-powered prime mover and to both energize and withdraw power 
from the flywheel. Efforts in the flywheel area will be closely 
coordinated with the demonstration locomotive activity. A rolling 
demonstration of ALPS turbine/flywheel technology in a prototype 
commercial high-speed locomotive is planned for CY 2000.
    In fiscal year 1999, testing of the full scale flywheel and 
generator assembly will begin. Heavy emphasis also will be placed on 
validating the safety aspects of installing the flywheel in a 
locomotive expected to serve public areas such as railroad passenger 
terminals. FRA is requesting $2 million for the flywheel portion of the 
non-electric locomotive effort in fiscal year 1999. Prior year 
expenditures have totalled $8.228M. The cost sharing arrangement for 
this project is 50 percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal.
                funding of fra projects from fhwa funds
    Question. Are any of the flywheel project costs being carried 
within the $10 million ``Joint Partnership Program'' in the Federal 
Highway Administration's limitation on general operating expenses 
(LGOE) request? Are any FRA-managed research projects budgeted within 
the Joint Partnership Program account?
    Answer. All costs for NGHSR efforts to develop a non-electric 
locomotive, including the flywheel energy storage battery, are budgeted 
in FRA accounts, since the NGHSR projects pre-date, by several years, 
the formation of the proposed Joint Partnership Program, which is still 
being defined. FRA is working with the joint program office to identify 
and pursue opportunities to leverage common technology elements between 
the existing FRA program and the new joint program. To date no specific 
FRA-managed projects are identified in the joint partnership effort.
                   joint funding of flywheel projects
    Question. What types of technology transfer activities and 
interagency cooperation are underway to advance flywheel safety and 
technology? Is there any cost sharing with other federal agencies or 
with industry? If not, are there any ongoing efforts to establish cost 
sharing?
    Answer. Flywheel energy storage technology is attractive to the US 
Air Force, the communications satellite industry, and NASA for 
potential satellite applications and for the International Space 
Station, as well as for terrestrial applications such as backup utility 
power sources and for ground vehicles as proposed in the Joint 
Partnership program. The safety of high-energy flywheels is a major 
concern for all of these applications because launch support personnel, 
astronauts, and/or the public may be near the flywheels while they are 
in operation.
    A joint committee with representation from USAF, DARPA, NASA, DOT, 
DOE, universities, and major potential flywheel manufacturers has been 
formed to examine the safety issues and to formulate an approach to 
certify the safety of flywheels intended to operate in a ``production'' 
environment. Significant information exchange, as well as sharing of 
the project costs, is already occurring. The joint committee will 
identify test facilities needed to support the certification effort. 
The common approach is expected to significantly reduce duplication of 
effort and to optimize the construction and utilization of the needed 
test facilities.
 coordination of various positive train separation and control systems
    Question. How are the various positive train control/separation 
projects coordinated with each other and integrated into a uniform 
program?
    Answer. One of the key tasks of the newly formed joint project in 
Illinois is to address the issue of ``interoperability'' of the various 
proposed train control systems around the nation, including the 
demonstration systems being sponsored by FRA. One of the earliest tasks 
of the joint program office will be to catalogue the systems which have 
strong likelihood of implementation and to document the technical 
approaches which each such system uses in its operations. Commonalities 
and differences will be identified so that suggestions for greater 
commonality can be made. Potential conflicts between systems, if both 
are installed on the same locomotive, also will be identified.
    The industry also has agreed to develop a common ``backbone'' or 
data bus to be installed on each locomotive, to minimize the number of 
train control accessories, such as radios and location systems, which 
must be carried by each locomotive. This approach facilitates 
implementation of the various approaches at minimum total cost to the 
industry. Agreement that this approach will be followed by all major 
railroads is a significant part of the agreements underlying the AAR 
participation in the new joint project.
                    status of train control projects
    Question. Regarding high-speed train control systems, please 
prepare a table indicating separately the status, problems, and 
challenges, along with the fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and 
planned fiscal year 1999 FRA investments for each major project in this 
program.
    Answer. The information is contained in the following tables:

                              POSITIVE TRAIN SEPARATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1997            1998       1999 (planned)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan ITCS Demonstration.....................................        $960,000  ..............  ..............
Illinois/AAR/FRA HSPTC Demonstration............................  ..............      $3,725,000  ..............
Oregon PTS Demonstration........................................       3,000,000  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         POSITIVE TRAIN SEPARATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS STATUS AND ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Status                        Problems and challenges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan ITCS Demonstration.........  Revenue service expected 1999.......  Overcome technical challenges
                                                                             revealed in testing.
Illinois/AAR/FRA HSPTC Demonstration  Joint project MOU being finalized...  Managing complex project with many
                                                                             participants.
Oregon PTS Demonstration............  Work plan being finalized...........  No significant issues at this time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        status of ptc rulemaking
    Question. FRA plans to complete a rulemaking to require the use of 
PTC by Class I railroads. What is the status of this rulemaking? When 
do you expect to issue such a rule?
    Answer. FRA convened a working group of the Railroad Safety 
Advisory Committee to address Positive Train Control in November of 
1997. The group is meeting actively and working through two task 
forces: (I) Data and Implementation and (ii) Standards.
    The Standards Task Force is focusing on performance standards for 
the introduction of PTC systems, including programs for inspection and 
maintenance of the systems over their life cycles. Although FRA had 
proffered a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as a basis for 
discussion, the task force has elected to pursue a more flexible and 
more clearly performance oriented approach to the subject matter. 
Topics under active discussion include verification and validation of 
systems (including quantitative proof of safety), independent 
assessment of supplier safety programs, techniques for review of system 
requirements specifications, and human factors analysis. The current 
objective is to prepare an NPRM during the current calendar year, with 
a final rule in 1999.
    The Data and Implementation Task Force is guiding preparation of a 
second-phase corridor risk analysis model that will benefit from 
improved density data supplied by participating freight railroads and 
that will utilize a refined accident data set that has been derived by 
an accident review team of the task force. In addition, this task force 
has prepared a survey of suppliers to determine characteristics of 
prospective PTC and similar systems, including systems now being 
developed and deployed. The task force will proceed to describe 
possible architectures for PTC and to evaluate the likely costs of 
systems and likely migration strategies.
                   virginia-pennsylvania pts project
    Question. The conferees directed the FRA to proceed under 
previously negotiated cost-sharing agreements with the second phase of 
the Manassas, Virginia, to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania pilot project which 
was intended to develop Positive Train Separation (PTS). Please discuss 
how this project is interoperable and cost-effective. What is the 
status of this project and what contracts have been signed?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997, FRA provided a grant of $500,000 to 
Conrail (on behalf of themselves, CSX, and Norfolk Southern) for the 
definition and design of an interoperable on-board locomotive positive 
train control (PTC) platform. The railroads awarded a contract to 
Rockwell for this work. The results were presented to the railroads and 
the railroad supply community on December 3, 1997. FRA has processed 
Norfolk Southern's grant application for $1,000,000 (on behalf of 
themselves, CSX, and Conrail) for the second phase of the project which 
is to develop two prototypes of an on-board locomotive PTC platform; 
one platform for each of the two separate vendors' communication bus. 
The prototypes will consist of a communication bus, core modules, and 
emulations of non-core modules required to simulate the core modules. 
The prototypes will be developed around the platform and message set 
specifications that were a product of the fiscal year 1997 activities. 
Testing of the prototypes on the Manassas-Harrisburg corridor is 
scheduled to take place in fiscal year 2000. Should train control 
system suppliers decide to adopt the standard communication bus 
developed in this program, and should railroads procure against the 
standard, interoperability will have been enhanced and PTC 
implementation costs will be reduced.
                status of michigan train control project
    Question. What is the status of the Michigan incremental train 
control (ITCS) high-speed passenger rail demonstration project? What 
will be the future federal involvement in this project?
    Answer. Revenue service for the system has been delayed by 
technical challenges revealed in the initial system testing. These 
challenges include the need to correct unanticipated radio interference 
between wayside radio base stations and the need to establish an 
independent differential global positioning (DGPS) reference system. 
The U.S. Coast Guard DGPS network does not yet cover the demonstration 
territory. In addition, planned functions, such as the advance starting 
of grade crossing warning systems, required almost continuous exchange 
of digital radio communication from the locomotive to the crossing 
rather than a one-time exchange. These findings have required revisions 
to the safety system software. However, the wayside hardware 
installation is nearing completion on the entire 80-mile segment and 
changes to resolve the technical challenges are well underway so that 
revenue service trains can begin to use this system.
    The Federal role in the existing project is to support the 
development and demonstration of new technologies which make high-speed 
passenger service significantly more practical and cost effective for 
the states. The ITCS technology, which is now under test, follows 
Michigan's original proposal--which dealt with an 80-mile segment of 
single-track railroad with very limited operational complexity. To be 
widely applicable, the ITCS technology would need to handle operations 
on multiple-track territory with complex operating scenarios, such as 
exist on the Kalamazoo to Detroit section of the Michigan corridor, as 
well as adapt the existing ITCS approach to provide maximum 
interoperability with other systems as the joint FRA/AAR/Illinois 
project proceeds. Federal involvement in advancing the technology to 
accomplish these objectives on a demonstration territory would be 
appropriate.
                   bnsf/up pts demonstration project
    Question. Please update the Committee on the Union Pacific/
Burlington Northern Santa Fe positive train separation joint pilot 
project in Washington and Oregon. What has been the total cost of this 
project? What were the funding sources? Is the project complete? Will 
the PTS system developed in the pilot project be put into revenue 
service by either Union Pacific or BNSF? What concepts have been tested 
and proven in this project? Are these interoperable elements?
    Answer. Proof-testing of the Positive Train Separation (PTS) system 
is continuing in the Pacific Northwest. Capabilities, which are 
essential for the successful implementation of both PTS and Positive 
Train Control (PTC) are being tested. These include: the ability to 
automatically locate the train; the ability to precisely predict train 
braking performance in the event an automatic brake application becomes 
necessary, and the ability to deliver the necessary quantity and 
reliability of digital communications between the train and the control 
centers. The next and final planned phase of PTS proof-testing is the 
validation of trains passing back and forth, at track speed, between 
the control centers and control networks of the two railroads. All of 
these capabilities are necessary to ultimately operate high-speed 
passenger service under PTS or PTC on lines of UP or BNSF.
    In addition to the PTS testing, FRA, Association of American 
Railroads (AAR), the two railroads, and Oregon DOT are formulating a 
demonstration of advanced digital radio communications. These 
communications networks are needed to respond to Federal Communications 
Commission mandated improvements in the efficiency of radio spectrum 
usage, and will be a cornerstone in future communications-based train 
control systems. Completion of this demonstration, and other groundwork 
related to the ongoing PTS tests, will provide the Pacific Northwest 
Corridor a significant portion of the infrastructure necessary for 
implementation of a train control system.
    Both UP and BNSF, as members of the AAR, are actively participating 
in the joint AAR-FRA-Illinois DOT train control project. This project 
is intended to achieve revenue service demonstration of full PTC 
including flexible block operation. The Illinois corridor between St. 
Louis and Chicago is an excellent initial testbed for these 
capabilities because it has a limited number of trains. Unlike the 
Pacific Northwest main line track, testing can be conducted without 
undue interference to large numbers of revenue freight trains.
    A logical progression is to validate the advanced PTC concepts in 
Illinois, then return to the testbed in the Pacific Northwest to 
advance these systems to heavy traffic lines where benefits will accrue 
to both freight and passenger operations.
                   train control and its technologies
    Question. What efforts have been made to link train control systems 
with ITS technologies? What contracts have been signed in this area? 
Please specify objectives and funding amounts of specific projects and 
indicate the status and progress to date.
    Answer. The High-Speed Rail-IDEA Program, funded by FRA and managed 
by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), has identified seven 
technologies to help identify the approach of trains, detect obstacles 
at grade crossings and improve communications between the wayside and a 
moving train. FRA is hopeful that these promising technologies will 
continue to be developed and that additional ideas will be submitted to 
TRB in 1999. The Michigan Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) 
project incorporates a checking of grade-crossing status before 
granting a train authority to move across it at high speed. Long Island 
Railroad is testing GRS' ATLAS system which also incorporates knowledge 
of grade crossing status into communications-based train control. The 
Highway Rail Intersection User Service #30 has yet to be forwarded to 
the Standards Development Organizations by the ITS Joint Program 
Office. Once standards are developed by the Standards Development 
Organization's, FRA would anticipate that it would give concept 
developers more confidence to come forward with specific project 
proposals.
             installation of positive train control systems
    Question. Please provide an update on what progress has been made 
by the railroads in installing positive train control systems. What has 
been done since last year, and how many of the major railroads have 
installed these systems? What new projects are planned for fiscal year 
1999?
    Answer. The following is a list of current and proposed positive 
train control activities:
    Amtrak, Michigan.--Testing has continued on Harmon's Incremental 
Train Control System (ITCS) project with revenue service to begin in 
late 1998.
    Amtrak, Northeast Corridor.--Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement 
System (ACSES) installation to be installed starting in 1998, with 
revenue service to begin in late 1999.
    Union Pacific, Amtrak, AAR, Illinois.--Positive Train Control (PTC) 
project agreed upon for Chicago-St. Louis corridor. Hardware 
procurement will probably take place in 1999 for installation in 2000.
    Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Pacific northwest.--
Testing of GE-Harris Positive Train Separation (PTS) system continues. 
Project should be completed in late 1998.
    CSX.--Contracted with Rockwell for PTC installation on Spartanburg-
Augusta line. Project schedule not known.
    New Jersey Transit.--Installing Automatic Train Control (ATC) on 
their system in 1998 and 1999.
    Long Island Railroad.--Testing GRS' ATLAS system including grade 
crossing warnings.
    Conrail/CSX/Norfolk Southern.--Developing locomotive on-board 
wiring harness for PTC interoperability. Rockwell awarded contract for 
developing specifications.
    Alaska Railroad.--Awarded contract to GE-Harris for PTC 
implementation. Communications and dispatcher hardware being installed 
in 1998. Locomotive hardware scheduled for 1999.
                illinois positive train control project
    Question. Please describe in detail the purpose, scope, 
methodology, and affected parties of the Illinois positive train 
control project.
    Answer. At the request of Union Pacific Railroad senior management, 
the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Board of Directors agreed 
to participate jointly with FRA and Illinois DOT (IDOT) in the Illinois 
train control project.
    The purpose of this project is to:
    (1) Develop, install, and demonstrate an advanced, communications-
based train control system which will provide capability for both high 
speed passenger operations and flexible block passenger and freight 
operations on a corridor segment in Illinois;
    (2) Provide a mechanism for the railroad industry to deal with 
interoperability issues associated with having different train control 
systems operating on locomotives moving throughout the North American 
railroad network, and
    (3) Provide these features using an ``open architecture'' approach 
which fosters participation by multiple technology suppliers.
    The proposed train control system will provide flexible block 
revenue-service operation for both passenger and freight trains on a 
123-mile segment north toward Chicago from Springfield, with control 
from Union Pacific's Harriman Center at Omaha. This will allow 
passenger train operation at up to 125 mph (if corridor improvements in 
track and grade crossing protection are made.)
    FRA, AAR, and IDOT are finalizing a memorandum of understanding to 
establish a joint program office at the Transportation Technology 
Center in Pueblo, CO. This office will be run by AAR's Transportation 
Technology Center, Inc. Mr. Robert Gallamore, of Union Pacific has 
accepted assignment as the full-time program manager.
    Upgrades of signal and control equipment, and establishment of 
digital radio communication networks will begin shortly on the 
demonstration corridor. Over the next two to three months, the joint 
program office will develop a detailed program plan outlining 
milestones, completion dates, and cost estimates, with a goal of 
developing flexible block system within four years. Safety verification 
and validation of system software will be major funding and time--
consuming task.
    In addition to installing the demonstration system in Illinois, the 
joint program office will address major national train control 
implementation issues such as interoperability of various systems and 
the need for open architecture solutions for train control systems. 
Open competition among potential suppliers is a stated goal of this 
project.
    FRA estimates that approximately $60 million over four years is 
needed to complete this project. FRA and IDOT have identified $15 
million of public funds presently available, and the AAR has committed 
$20 million. Cost sharing from suppliers will be a major criterion in 
competitive selections, which will help offset the balance of funds 
needed.
                illinois positive train control project
    Question. Why is there no fiscal year 1999 funding request to 
support the Illinois project?
    Answer. FRA did not request funding in fiscal year 1999 as prior 
year funding was adequate to continue work through fiscal year 1999.
    FRA and the state of Illinois DOT (IDOT) presently have about $15 
million of public funds available for this project, to be added to the 
$20 million committed by the Association of American Railroads. One 
major precept of the joint effort already agreed is that program 
procurements will be competitive, based on the principles of open 
architecture, and cost shared to the maximum possible extent by 
supplier organizations.
             fiscal year 1999 funding--illinois ptc project
    Question. Will there be sufficient funds during fiscal year 1999 to 
cost-share with industry in the new Illinois project? Please specify 
unobligated federal funds that are available to support this project. 
What are the sources of these unobligated balances?
    Answer. FRA and the state of Illinois DOT (IDOT) presently have 
about $15 million of public funds available for this project, to be 
added to the $20 million committed by the Association of American 
Railroads. This is sufficient funding for fiscal year 1999 work. One 
major precept of the joint effort already agreed is that program 
procurements will be competitive, based on the principles of open 
architecture, and cost shared to the maximum possible extent by 
supplier organizations. There are no unobligated balances available for 
this project.
                future funding for illinois ptc project
    Question. Please provide an estimate of project costs for fiscal 
year 1998, 1999, 2000, and the out years. Please delineate the costs 
among the federal funds, industry share, and the State of Illinois.
    Answer. The information follows:

                              ILLINOIS TRAIN POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL PROJECTED COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year--
                      Cost                       ------------------------------------------------    Out years
                                                       1998            1999            2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal.........................................      $2,225,000  ..............         ( \1\ )         ( \1\ )
State of Illinois...............................  ..............  ..............         ( \1\ )         ( \1\ )
Industry........................................       5,000,000      $5,000,000      $5,000,000      $5,000,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Will be determined based on a project business plan being prepared by the project joint program office and
  is subject to review and change.

       coordination of ptcs between eastern and western railroads
    Question. How will FRA help facilitate PTCS connectivity between 
eastern and western railroads?
    Answer. A key objective of the overall joint Illinois effort is to 
foster such connectivity by making all proposed systems interoperable 
to the greatest possible extent. Also, as part of the initiation of the 
joint project in Illinois, the western railroads have agreed to 
implement a communications bus approach aboard each locomotive, as 
originally advocated by the three eastern railroads and being developed 
jointly with FRA support in the Harrisburg-Hagerstown-Manassas 
corridor.
           illinois project--benefit to non-signalized lines
    Question. How will the Illinois project benefit non-signalized rail 
lines?
    Answer. The communications-based approach can interface with 
existing signal systems but can be implemented whether or not wayside 
signals presently exist on any given line. The core technologies of 
automatic location, digital radio links, onboard computers, and onboard 
route databases do not rely on the presence of a wayside signal system, 
although some implementations of communications-based systems do rely 
on the information available from the existing signals. Systems can 
readily be designed to utilize the core elements as ``building blocks'' 
to address the needs of territory where signals are not installed.
                dgps and illinois train control project
    Question. What role will the installation of a nationwide 
differential global positioning system play in the success of the 
Illinois positive train control project? Does the State of Illinois 
have DGPS coverage at this time?
    Answer. The rail line on which the Illinois PTC project will be 
demonstrated already has coverage from the Coast Guard's Maritime DGPS 
system. The installation of nationwide DGPS will enhance the strength 
and effectiveness of the DGPS signal available to the Illinois PTC 
demonstration and thus makes a positive contribution to the success of 
this project.
                 alaska positive train control project
    Question. What is the status of the Alaska Railroad positive train 
control demonstration project? Please provide a schedule of project 
benchmarks and funding history, breaking out funding by federal, Alaska 
Railroad, and other funding sources.
    Answer. FRA provided $4 million to the Alaska Railroad in 1997 to 
fund the first phase of their positive train control project. To our 
knowledge, the Alaska Railroad has not received or spent funds from any 
other source on the project. They will be receiving funds from the 
Taxpayer Relief Act in 1998 which could be spent on the project.
    In the first quarter, 1997, the Alaska Railroad completed site 
surveys for their communications infrastructure and issued an RFP for 
train control system hardware and software. In the second quarter, 
1997, they evaluated proposals and signed a contract with Train Track 
Computer Systems for a computer-aided dispatch system. They also 
awarded a contract to GE-Harris to perform a communications radio 
frequency and GPS survey.
    In the third quarter, 1997, GE-Harris took over responsibility from 
Train Track for the computer-aided dispatch system. Equipment for voice 
radio upgrade was received. Digital microwave radios and antennas were 
installed at six locations. In the fourth quarter, 1997, installation 
of microwave equipment continued along with voice radio equipment. Work 
on the computer-aided dispatch system continued, with a completion date 
set at the end of 1998.
 fiscal years 1998-99 funding for alaska positive train control project
    Question. What funding for the Alaska Railroad positive train 
control project did FRA ask of OST and OMB for fiscal year 1998? For 
fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. FRA requested no funds for the Alaska Railroad positive 
train control project in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. In 1997, 
the enactment of the Taxpayers Relief Act and of Amtrak Reform 
legislation provided approximated $23 million to the Alaska Railroad 
for capital projects including their positive train control project. 
The railroad will receive half of those funds in 1998 and half in 1999.
       industry benefits of alaska positive train control project
    Question. Please detail the potential benefits to the railroad 
industry of the Alaska Railroad positive train control project. Are 
there specific advantages to developing a system from the ground up, 
rather than developing a system that overlays an existing signaling 
network? What technical issues that have interoperability implications 
might the Alaska Railroad positive train control project address?
    Answer. The Alaska Railroad's PTC project will be the first 
complete implementation of PTC on any railroad. It will enable other 
railroads to see first-hand how it works. It is somewhat simpler and 
less expensive to install PTC on a railroad, like the Alaska Railroad, 
which has no signal system in place; fewer interfaces are required with 
existing electrical and electronic equipment. However, the logic of PTC 
on the Alaska Railroad would be no different from the logic of PTC on a 
major railroad in the lower 48 states that carry much heavier traffic 
on signaled track. Half of the railroad track in the US is without 
signals, and consequently the Alaska Railroad project could be viewed 
as a prototype for installations on such ``dark territory.''
    Interoperability issues are nonexistent for the Alaska Railroad 
since it interchanges traffic with other railroads only by rail-barge 
operations across the Gulf of Alaska. However, if other railroads elect 
to install PTC using the same specifications as that on the Alaska 
Railroad, which they might do once they see it in operation in Alaska, 
they will automatically achieve interoperability with one another.
    PTC interoperability is primarily a management decision issue 
rather than a technical issue. If railroads can agree on common 
specifications for communications and positioning systems, 
interoperability is automatically achieved. If they cannot reach 
agreement on common specifications for communications and positioning 
systems, then the simplest way of achieving interoperability is to 
install the equipment of the different PTC systems on those locomotives 
that will be running through. If the manufacturers of different PTC 
systems were to openly publish their data representations and 
protocols, it would be possible, in principle, for PTC suppliers to 
configure their on-board computers to accommodate communications from 
control systems other than their own. Without either common 
specifications, or open publication of protocols, separate suites of 
equipment would be needed on-board a train for it to operate on 
multiple territories.
                 integration of ndgps with ptc efforts
    Question. How will the NDGPS Program be integrated with positive 
train control efforts already underway?
    Answer. NDGPS will provide a standard nationwide location, 
positioning, and navigation system, with redundant coverage to provide 
99.999 percent availability to the continental United States and 
Alaska. This system will integrate with all positive train control 
(PTC) projects already underway, in that it will help solve one of two 
requirements for PTC interoperability, namely the need for a common 
positioning and navigation system for locomotives to operate on 
railroads anywhere in the nation. The other requirement is for a common 
message format and common radio frequencies.
                          user fees for ndgps
    Question. On page 105, you state that future operational funding 
for the NDGPS system will come through fees on users or manufacturers 
of equipment. What is the legislative basis or authority for such fees? 
Who would impose such fees?
    Answer. There is currently no legislative basis or authority for 
such user fees. The Department of Transportation intends to establish a 
user fee policy for all users of GPS and DGPS. The precise mechanisms 
for accomplishing this are yet to be determined.
                    dot funding allocation for ndgps
    Question. What is the empirical basis for the allocation between 
the FRA request and the FHWA request for DGPS? How will each agency 
benefit from the installation of NDGPS transmitters, in fiscal year 
1999, and in the future? Who will be the lead agency in administering 
the program?
    Answer. The allocation was based on the fact that benefits that 
would accrue to rail and highway users. The railroad industry, and its 
customers, will benefit from the installation of NDGPS because it is an 
important enabling technology for positive train control, which, in 
turn, has the ability to make railroads both safer and more efficient. 
FRA itself will use NDGPS to improve the accuracy and efficiency of its 
Automated Track Inspection Program and to develop a more accurate 
railroad network model needed for analytic purposes. Because of the 
need of the railroad industry for a nationally-consistent positioning 
system and because of desires to have an interoperable PTC system 
installed by the nation's railroads, FRA is serving as the lead agency 
in proposing the expansion of the existing Coast Guard Maritime 
Differential GPS network (which is currently limited to coastal and 
navigable waterways) to become a truly nationwide system to support the 
nation's intermodal transportation system. The Coast Guard will serve 
as the lead agency for installing, operating, and maintaining the 
Nationwide DGPS network. The fiscal year 1999 funding is for the second 
year of a five-year program to complete the Nationwide Differential GPS 
network. It is difficult to allocate benefits to FRA and FHWA on a 
year-to-year basis during the implementation period.
                    fiscal year 1999 funding for ptc
    Question. On page 10 of your justification, you state that $600,000 
of the NDGPS funding will support PTC initiatives. Doesn't the entire 
NDGPS request support positive train control? Please break out in 
specific detail the use of these requested funds.
    Answer. The designation of $600,000 to support PTC initiatives was 
a technical error which was subsequently corrected. In fact, all 
funding in the request is now directed to NDGPS, and that entire 
request does support positive train control.
                      future costs of ndgps system
    Question. What are the future costs of the NDGPS system? Please 
provide a 5-year schedule of benchmarks, anticipated costs, and 
anticipated funding sources.
    Answer. Under our current estimate, total installation costs will 
be $30.3 million, including $7.2 million for fiscal year 2000, $7.9 
million for fiscal year 2001, and $7.4 million for fiscal year 2002, at 
which point installation will be complete. In addition to installation 
costs, FRA estimates operation and maintenance costs of $3.2 million in 
fiscal year 2000, $4.3 million in fiscal year 2001, and $5.2 million in 
fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent year. The fiscal year 1999 
President's Budget proposes that future capital funding come from all 
federal agencies whose programs will benefit from the new technology. 
The President's Budget also proposes that future operational costs be 
supported through fees on users or manufacturers of equipment.
                       separate account for ndgps
    Question. What was the rationale behind the decision to create a 
new account structure for this funding, and to split it between two DOT 
agencies? Why not include this within FRA's existing Next Generation 
High-Speed Rail account or Railroad Research and Development account?
    Answer. FRA decided to create a new account structure for NDGPS 
funding because the funding did not fit well within existing accounts. 
The Next Generation High-Speed Rail program is aimed at demonstrations 
to foster high-speed passenger service on corridors throughout the 
country, and the Railroad Research and Development program is aimed at 
research to improve railroad safety. The NDGPS program is aimed at 
freight as well as passenger service, and is a deployment program 
rather than a research or demonstration program. The decision to split 
funding between two DOT agencies was made because the constituencies of 
both agencies would receive benefits from the NDGPS program.
   status of grade crossing hazard mitigation/innovation technologies
    Question. Regarding the development of grade crossing hazard 
mitigation technologies, please prepare a table indicating separately 
the status, problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1997, 
fiscal year 1998 and planned fiscal year 1999 FRA investments for each 
major project in this program.
    Answer. The information is contained in the following tables.

                                  GRADE CROSSING HAZARD MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1997            1998       1999 (planned)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Corridor.................................................      $2,000,000      $2,000,000        $400,000
Mitigating Hazards..............................................       1,100,000       2,500,000       2,500,000
Low Cost HSR Crossing...........................................       1,899,882       1,100,000       1,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  GRADE CROSSING HAZARD MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Status                        Problems and challenges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Corridor.....................  Construction is underway. Tests of    The Master Agreement between the
                                       long gate arms and articulated gate   Norfolk Southern Railroad and NCDOT
                                       arms are complete.                    governing crossing work was signed
                                                                             April 6, 1998. Significant
                                                                             construction is planned for this
                                                                             summer and fall.
Locked Gate at Private Crossing.....  Project awarded to NYSDOT under BAA   Adequate funding. No significant
                                       in 1997.                              issues at this time.
Broad Agency Announcement...........  Additional projects are planned for   ....................................
                                       award in fiscal year 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     status of arrestor net project
    Question. What is the status of the arrestor net project? What has 
this project accomplished?
    Answer. The manufacture, crash testing, installation and pre-
demonstration field testing of the vehicle arrestor barrier nets (VAB) 
is complete. Video cameras have been installed to monitor the motion of 
the arrestor nests as well as record any impacts or attempted 
violations. Three data transmissions lines are being installed to 
transmit the video data. Public education through outreach meetings and 
public service announcements is underway. Bid openings for the 
maintenance contract is scheduled for April 7, 1998.
    The demonstration is scheduled to begin May 1, 1998 following 
opening ceremonies with the Governor of Illinois to publicize the 
project. To date, approximately $3.4 million of the state's Section 
1010 funds allocation has been devoted to the development and 
demonstration of this project.
    The three locations for the demonstration are:
    1. Trunk Rte 35A, near Chenoa, (UP, mp 105.93) #290786R
    2. US Route 136, McLean, (UP, mp 141.2) #290964A
    3. Hawthorne St., Hartford, (Gateway Western Railway and UP, UP MP 
264.85), #FAU 8975.
    The University of Illinois has been retained to conduct the 
technical and human factors evaluations of the barriers. Preliminary 
surveys of driver perceptions at these crossings have been conducted, 
and additional surveys will be conducted as the barriers are 
demonstrated for the 18 months.
                   status of sealed corridor project
    Question. What is the status of the sealed corridor project? How is 
this project managed? What are the initial results? How much do you 
expect to allocate to the sealed corridor project during fiscal year 
1999? What is the next technological step to advance this project 
during fiscal year 1999 and what would this cost?
    Answer. The goal of the Sealed Corridor Initiative (SCI) is to 
improve safety at the 131 crossings in the 92-mile Charlotte to 
Greensboro segment of North Carolina's high-speed rail corridor between 
Charlotte and Raleigh (total length 174 miles with 170 public and 60 
private crossings). It builds upon the demonstrations of median 
barriers, four quadrant gates, and finally four quadrant gates with 
median barriers conducted at Sugar Creek Road in Charlotte from 
November, 1994 through November, 1996. The SCI is funded by both the 
Section 1010 Program of ISTEA and the Next Generation High-Speed Rail 
Program (NGHSR).
Accomplishments to Date
    Four-quadrant gates have been installed at 3 locations (Sugar Creek 
Road and Craighead Road in Charlotte, and Hilltop Road in Greensboro). 
One gate will be installed at Blue Ridge Road in Raleigh and 
construction should be finished by October, 1998. (17 are planned)
    Long gate arms have been tested at Orr Road in Charlotte (51 are 
planned) with a resulting decrease in violations by 67 percent. An 
articulated gate has also been tested with a 78 percent reduction in 
traffic violations recorded.
    The Video Ticketing project in Salisbury has begun.
    Median barriers have been installed at 1 location and will be 
installed at 18 crossings this spring and summer (22 are planned).
    Intelligent Signal Monitoring system hardware (health monitoring of 
grade crossing equipment which communicates with maintenance offices) 
is being tested to settle on a final design (Harmon, Safetran and 
Devtronics equipment is under test).
    12 crossings have been closed (4 private) so far, with plans to 
close an additional 7 crossings in the next 6 months. Seven Traffic 
Separation studies are underway to identify additional crossings 
eligible for closure (perhaps as many as 13).
Funding and Management
    The grant is managed through the NGHSR Program. Project management 
is provided by the North Carolina DOT, working with the Norfolk 
Southern Railroad. Total cost of the Sealed Corridor Initiative for the 
92-mile Charlotte to Greensboro segment is estimated to be $5.1 
million. To date, $2.75 million has been provided from FRA's NGHSR 
program. An additional $2.5 million has been provided under ISTEA 
Section 1010, which has paid for the treatment of crossings in the 
corridor and also funded the initial demonstration at Sugar Creek Road 
and the corridor-wide (Charlotte-Raleigh) inventory of crossings.
    An additional $280,000 in Section 1010 funds allocated in fiscal 
year 1998 will equip two grade crossings in Greensboro with 4-quadrant 
gates. Also, an award of $2 million in fiscal year 1998 funds will 
enable the Sealed Corridor Initiative to expand eastward beyond 
Greensboro, treating the crossings between Greensboro and Burlington in 
a similar manner. The State is providing an approximate 20 percent 
match to the Federal funds. Estimates for completion of the Sealed 
Corridor between Burlington through Durham to Raleigh is roughly $5 to 
6 million. FRA has included $400,000 in its fiscal year 1999 request 
for this initiative.
Next Technical Step to Advance this Project
    There has been a delay in implementing some of the crossing 
improvement projects due to failure of the State and Norfolk Southern 
Railroad to complete the master agreement on the Sealed Corridor. There 
are several reasons for this: NS preparations for acquiring part of 
Conrail has diverted company resources, NS negotiations with the North 
Carolina Railroad, and the lawsuit by the private shareholders. The 
private shareholders were bought out as of April 1, 1998, and the final 
details of the master agreement have been settled. The Master Agreement 
was signed April 6, 1998. There should now be no technical obstacles to 
inhibit the NCDOT and NS from proceeding to complete the Sealed 
Corridor projects.
                    hsr track and structures funding
    Question. Regarding the development of high-speed rail track and 
structure technologies, please prepare a table indicating separately 
the status, problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1997, 
fiscal year 1998, and planned fiscal year 1999 FRA investments. Please 
include information on each major FRA project in this program.
    Answer. The information is contained in the following table.

                                          TRACK AND STRUCTURES FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1997            1998       1999 (planned)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track and Structures (State of Oregon)..........................      $5,650,000  ..............  ..............
Track and Structures (other States).............................         850,000      $1,200,000      $1,200,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................       6,500,000       1,200,000       1,200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     TRACK AND STRUCTURES STATUS AND ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Status                        Problems and challenges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene-Portland Corridor track        Grant awarded, project underway.....  No significant issues at this time.
 upgrade.
Advanced HS Rail Vehicle and Track    Prototype successfully tested, in-    No significant issues at this time.
 Monitoring System.                    service demonstration in near
                                       future.
Evaluation and Demonstration of       Project began early CY  1998........  No significant issues at this time.
 Techniques to Assure Subgrade
 Performance for High-Speed Track.
Demonstration of HS Track             Project underway, initial results     No significant issues at this time.
 maintenance Using Objective Gage      promising.
 Strength Data.
Broad Agency Announcement to solicit  To be issued Spring 1998............  No significant issues at this time.
 additional proposals in this
 technology area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  time lines for hsr corridor projects
    Question. Please list separately the time lines for completion of 
each of the high-speed rail corridor projects now underway, and the 
estimated amount of Federal funds that will be needed to assure 
completion. How has the FRA incorporated cost-sharing into each of 
these program areas? Please quantify cost-sharing for each project.
    Answer. The figures stated below on actual and planned expenditures 
are based on best estimates provided by State officials. FRA planning 
grants require a $1 non-federal contribution for each federal dollar 
awarded (50 percent/50 percent). As can be seen in the following 
corridor summaries, several states have provided more than the required 
50 percent non-federal share.
Florida
    The State of Florida has spent about $34 million on corridor 
improvements for high-speed rail within the state. The State also 
purchased a portion of its designated high-speed corridor between Miami 
and West Palm Beach for $361 million including interest and established 
commuter service on the line.
    The State awarded a franchise to the Florida Overland Express (FOX) 
group to design, build, operate and maintain a 200 mph electrified 
system based on the French TGV on the 320 mile corridor between 
Orlando, Tampa and Miami. The system would cost about $6 billion and 
the State is developing its financing plan for this project. FRA is 
providing $100,000 to assist the state in preparing the project 
environmental impact statement (EIS). The state is contributing the 
balance of $7,256,000 to complete the EIS.
Washington, DC to Richmond, VA. And on to Tidewater and Charlotte, NC
Virginia
    The State of Virginia has spent $52 million and is planning to 
spend $50 million in the next two years on the Washington to Richmond 
corridor, its highest priority, for improvements to the line for the 
Virginia Railway Express commuter service and high-speed rail.
    The State of Virginia has begun an environmental assessment of the 
Washington to Richmond corridor. Initially, the plan calls for a non-
electrified upgrade of the 110 mile corridor which extends the 
Northeast corridor from Washington to Richmond. It assumes that speeds 
will be increased to 110 mph. Reducing travel times about 25 percent 
should provide that needed incentive to handle current traffic problems 
and projected vehicular traffic on US 95 and other parallel highways. 
Total travel time by rail would be reduced to 90 minutes and trains 
would run hourly by the completion of the project in 2014. A High-Speed 
Rail Commission was formed to evaluate the study and make 
recommendations to the legislature. The plan consists of six stages:

                    Estimated capital costs by stage

                                                                 Capitol
        Stage                                                       cost
1.......................................................        $150,000
2.......................................................       4,850,000
3.......................................................       8,734,000
4.......................................................     147,500,000
5.......................................................      52,440,000
6.......................................................     120,200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     327,000,000

    The state has a major investment study underway of the Richmond to 
Tidewater area in which various rail options are being investigated. 
The study is expected to be completed in June 1998. The state is also 
expected to perform an analysis for rail passenger service from 
Richmond to Bristol, Virginia which will begin in 1998. FRA has 
provided the state a total of $285,000 in planning funds to conduct 
signalization studies on the Richmond-Washington corridor. The funds 
have been matched by the state.
North Carolina
    The State of North Carolina has expended $31.2 million, including 
equipment, and is planning to spend $85 million in the next two years 
in the Raleigh to Charlotte corridor.
    The State has developed a ``sealed corridor initiative'' for the 
Greensboro to Charlotte portion of the high-speed corridor from Raleigh 
to Charlotte. The purpose of the initiative is to increase safety and 
to develop a data base for appropriate treatment of crossings for the 
entire corridor. The Charlotte to Greensboro segment (92 miles) has 99 
public and 32 private crossings. The entire Raleigh to Charlotte 
corridor (174 miles) has 170 public and 60 private crossings The work 
includes (1) installation of grade crossing monitoring and data 
collection devices; (2) innovative grade crossing devices at public at-
grade crossings; (3) video enforcement of warning devices at crossings; 
(4) studies and interviews to determine behavioral aspects and 
demographics of violators; (5) traffic separation studies to determine 
crossing consolidation opportunities; (6) and innovative warning 
devices at private crossings. The Charlotte to Greensboro segment 
effort is expected to cost about $5.1 million. This experiment will be 
valuable to the FRA as it works with other developing corridors across 
the country.
    Virginia and North Carolina have completed a high-speed study for 
the Washington, DC to Charlotte corridor. The cost to upgrade to 110 
mph service for the Washington, DC to Richmond segment is estimated at 
$327 million, from Richmond to Raleigh about $320 million, and from 
Raleigh to Charlotte $415 million. FRA provided a $200,000 planning 
grant to conduct an environmental assessment of the Charlotte to 
Washington, DC corridor. The state over-matched this grant with 
$300,000 of its own funds.
California
    Nearly $670 million has been spent or committed to date for 
equipment and to upgrade the San Diego-Los Angeles-Oakland and 
Sacramento corridor. A major study by the California Intercity High-
Speed Rail Commission (Commission) evaluated the feasibility of 
implementing an HSR system in the State and their final report was 
submitted to the Governor and Legislature in December 1996. The cost of 
the 676-mile system linking the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central 
Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego route is expected to be between $21 
billion for a Very High-Speed (200 mph) system and $29 billion for a 
magnetic levitation (Maglev) system. The level of future investments 
will depend on legislative action and voter response to new bond 
referenda.
    The State has created and staffed a High-Speed Rail Authority 
(Authority) to build support for the plans and to take the proposal to 
the voters by the year 2000. The Authority is now seeking bids for a 
contractor to assist in this process. FRA provided $100,000 for 
additional study of the Los Angeles-San Diego HSR corridor. The state 
over-matched this amount with $200,000.
New York
    The State of New York has expended $289.2 million and is planning 
to spend an additional $169.9 million on incrementally improving the 
160 mile New York to Schenectady line for 125 mph service on existing 
right of way and, in the longer term, improving the line west of 
Schenectady to Buffalo/Niagara Falls. A three year rail improvement 
plan for New York to Schenectady calls for a total investment of $146 
million and will employ non-electric diesel or turbine locomotives. 
Some $30.5 million is available for New York to Schenectady upgrades. 
The line from Schenectady to Niagara Falls will cost an additional $145 
million of which $5.7 million is available. The state is particularly 
interested in identifying those sections of the highly congested 
freight corridor where relatively modest investments in new track may 
make a significant improvement in train operating performance. A grade 
crossing protection plan is also being instituted in the corridor. 
Congress appropriated a total of $10 million of Federal funds for 
reconstructing the RTL trainsets in fiscal year 1996-1998. NYSDOT will 
provide $10 million of matching funds for a total of $20 million. 
NYSDOT has developed a preliminary budget of $50 million for the non-
recurring engineering costs and reconstruction of all seven trainsets.
New York-Boston
    Between New York City and Boston, the north end of the Northeast 
corridor, Amtrak will provide 150 mph service and travel time will be 
cut from the current average trip time of 4:45 hours to 3 hour service 
after the New Haven, CT/Boston, MA segment is electrified and 18 new 
trainsets begin to be deployed in late 1999. The cost of 
electrification and track upgrades is about $1.5 billion. Between 
fiscal years 1991 and 1998, Congress has appropriated $940 million for 
improvements to the north end.
    The trainsets are expected to cost $754 million and the Congress 
has appropriated $185 million through fiscal year 1996. Additional 
funds have been raised through borrowing. The first trainset is 
scheduled to be delivered for testing at the Pueblo facility in January 
1999.
Pacific Northwest Corridor: Eugene, Portland, Seattle, to Vancouver, 
        B.C.
Washington
    The State of Washington has spent $60.1 million and planning to 
spend $46 million in the next two years to make track improvements to 
Washington's portion of the corridor. Additional funding may become 
available through a November 1998 ballot initiative.
    The State will take delivery of two custom built TALGO trains in 
late 1998 and Amtrak will also add a similar TALGO train this year. 
Amtrak has also optioned for a second TALGO to be built for use in the 
Eugene, Portland, Seattle to Vancouver corridor.
    In 1996, FRA made a grant of $750 thousand to Washington to 
coordinate high-speed rail requirements with the Positive Train 
Separation (PTS) prototype being developed jointly by Burlington 
Northern/Sante Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) railroads in Washington 
and Oregon. PTS will use digital radios and computers on board each 
locomotive to automatically enforce safe operation. Mostly at their own 
expense, BNSF and UP plan to continue installing and testing the 
prototype system for freight operations that was begun in the fall of 
1996. The FRA grant provides resources to assure that early PTS design 
can be upgraded in the future for high-speed passenger operations. FRA 
provided $170,000 to conduct an environmental impact study (EIS) of the 
HSR corridor between Vancouver, WA and Blaine, WA. The state 
contributed the balance of the project cost of $636,000.
Oregon
    The State of Oregon has spent $2.9 million on upgrading the Pacific 
Northwest Corridor. Oregon together with FRA, the Burlington Northern/
Sante Fe and Union Pacific railroads are working to further develop the 
BNSF/UP Positive Train Separation system to permit high-speed passenger 
service on the Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, B.C. corridor. A 
portion of the $5 million funded project would purchase necessary 
wayside sensors and radios for 12 miles of heavily congested double 
track in downtown Portland that is presently signaled for one way 
operation. This installation will permit assessment of the reliability 
of the PTS communications links in the area where dense railroad and 
commercial radio traffic is present. In cooperation with the Coast 
Guard and Army Corps of Engineers, the state of Oregon and the FRA have 
established differential global positioning system (DGPS) coverage in 
the area of the Columbia River valley to confirm the adequacy of DGPS 
for train control purposes in areas of very rugged terrain.
    In 1997, the state received an additional $5.2 million for track 
work in the Portland Terminal area, which joins an earlier grant for $1 
million for track work at the Portland Terminal. FRA provided $120,000 
in planning funds which the state matched in order to complete a 
programmatic environmental impact statement of the Oregon portion of 
the HSR corridor.
    The States of Washington and Oregon, together with British 
Columbia, have completed a planning report and are now performing an 
environmental impact study on the Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, 
B.C. project corridor. The plan calls for a non-electrified upgrade of 
the 466 mile rail corridor that assumes maximum operating speeds of 125 
mph. The plan consists of four phases (5 years each) and is estimated 
to cost $1.82 billion.
               mid-west high-speed rail corridor activity
Nine State Midwest Regional System Study
    The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WISDOT) is developing a 
blueprint/business plan for preserving, improving and expanding rail 
passenger services (including high-speed rail) within the Midwest 
region. This would, in effect, be an expansion of the Chicago Hub 
corridor as designated under ISTEA Section 1010 and studied in FRA's 
commercial feasibility study (CFS). The study sponsors and the amount 
of their contribution include FRA , ($200,000), Amtrak, ($200,000), and 
the states of Illinois ($20,000), Iowa ($20,000), Michigan ($50,000), 
Missouri ($40,000), Wisconsin ($50,000), Minnesota ($30,000), Indiana 
($20,000), Nebraska ($8,500), and Ohio ($50,000).
    Preliminary study results indicate that a regional rail system 
operating over existing trackage is feasible. The system would have a 
benefit to cost ratio of 1.9, have an overall operating ratio of 1.36 
or cover its operating costs and recover the State share of capital 
costs. The system would operate at speeds up to 110 mph and would use 
diesel multiple unit equipment. Capital costs are estimated at $3.5 
billion over the six years required to rebuild current trackage. The 
system would provide a competitive system with much improved travel 
times, frequencies and fares. It would also be comparable to air in 
comfort and convenience for medium distance trips. The states are now 
seeking project endorsement and funding commitments to advance project 
planning and implementation.
Michigan
    The State of Michigan has expended to date a total of $53.6 million 
in track signals, stations and equipment on the Chicago to Detroit 
designated high speed corridor. The state is planning to spend an 
additional $16.9 million through 1998.
    The State of Michigan together with Amtrak has developed a three 
phase, 32 segment plan of incremental improvements from Chicago to 
Detroit. Amtrak service on the 279 mile line now takes about five and 
one-half hours and the highway trip takes about five hours. By the end 
of the project, Michigan plans for nine round trip frequencies, using 
125 mph electric locomotives and a running time of three hours. Until 
electrified, the line would require diesel or turbine equipment 
operating at a maximum speed of 90 mph. Amtrak owns about one-third of 
the line and Conrail (Norfolk Southern) owns the remaining two thirds. 
A key component of the proposed plan is the acquisition of a series of 
abandoned or little used railroad rights of way in Northern Indiana 
that, when combined with the existing 97 miles of Amtrak owned line and 
the proposed purchase from Conrail of the segment from Kalamazoo to 
Ypsilanti, would create a continuous passenger train corridor of over 
250 miles long that is suitable for upgrading to high speed service. 
The estimated capital costs for the upgrades for non-electric service 
including property acquisition are about $700 million. It is estimated 
to cost an additional $500 million to electrify the line.
    FRA awarded the state a $6.08 million grant in 1995 under the 
Positive Train Control Development Program to install and demonstrate 
an incremental train control system in the Amtrak-owned 96-mile segment 
of its high-speed corridor between Kalamazoo, Michigan and Porter, 
Indiana. An additional $3 million was awarded in 1996. The system has 
been installed on the first 20-mile section of the 71-mile 
demonstration test track. A high-speed public demonstration of the 
system took place on October 11, 1996. Michigan and Amtrak have entered 
into an agreement to add an additional $1.6 million to the track 
rehabilitation work. High-speed 100 mph testing continues and the state 
anticipates revenue passenger service at 100 mph on the 20 mile segment 
by October 1998. FRA also provided a $118,695 grant that was 
overmatched with $170,805 to update ridership and revenue forecasts on 
the Detroit-Chicago HSR corridor.
Illinois
    Through the end of fiscal year 1998 Illinois will have spent $64.5 
million on the project. The Illinois Department of Transportation 
(IDOT) together with Amtrak has developed a plan for non-electric, 125 
mph service using tilt suspension technology in the Chicago to St. 
Louis portion of the Midwest high-speed corridor. The proposed system 
would offer eight round trips per day between Chicago and St. Louis 
with downtown to downtown trip times of 3 to 3.5 hours for a two hour 
time savings. Four alignment options are being considered in the 
Chicago area in the environmental impact study. Two options go through 
Peotone based on a planned new airport being built there: (1) Chicago-
Peotone-Wilmington, labeled the Green Grass alternative because it will 
require 20 miles of new track construction, and (2) Chicago-Peotone-
Kankakee-Dwight, labeled the Conrail option because it uses Conrail 
trackage westward from Kankakee. The other two options go through 
Joliet using the (3) Illinois Central line, labeled the Illinois 
Central/Union Pacific route and (4) an abandoned Rock Island line, 
labeled the Rock Island District route. All options use the existing 
Union Pacific route southwestward from Dwight. Capital costs are in the 
$400 million range, not including station and grade crossing hazard 
elimination costs. Current lines would be upgraded over a three year 
period. Financing would come from a combination of revenue backed 
financing and public contributions. The entrance into St. Louis is 
being changed at Granite City, removing passenger trains from the 
heavily traveled freight lines and moving them southward over renovated 
tracks to the MacArthur Bridge. FRA provided a $300,000 matching grant 
to prepare the final environmental impact statement for the Chicago-St. 
Louis HSR corridor.
    A joint innovative signaling project was established this year 
between the Federal Railroad Administration, Illinois DOT, Union 
Pacific Railroad and the American Association of Railroads and an 
agreement is being finalized. The American Association of Railroads 
will fund the project at $20 million over four years to match the $15 
millions of public funding from FRA and Illinois DOT plus future 
contributions. The project will fund a revenue service demonstration of 
a satellite linked train control system using flexible blocks. The 
system will address issues of industry-wide interoperability and open 
architecture for train control systems.
    Starting in the Spring, 1998, the state will demonstrate innovative 
vehicle arrestor net barriers at three locations to evaluate their 
effectiveness for improving the safety of crossings on the high-speed 
corridor.
Wisconsin
    The State of Wisconsin has completed a high-speed rail evaluation 
study of the Chicago to Milwaukee corridor. Three existing rail 
alignments were examined and the study identified the current Amtrak 
route between Chicago and Milwaukee as the most favorable for high-
speed non-electric service (the most favored cost option). By auto, it 
now takes from 90 to 120 minutes to travel from city center Milwaukee 
to Chicago depending on traffic and 87 minutes by train. By increasing 
train speed to 110 mph service would cut travel time to just under one 
hour. By increasing train speed to 125 mph, travel time would be cut to 
51 minutes. Both plans would substantially reduce highway congestion on 
the heavily traveled route. Costs were estimated based on 12 round 
trips under the 110 mph scenario, and 16 round trips using the 125 mph 
speed. Under both scenarios, operating revenues would cover operating 
costs and there would be a positive contribution to capital costs. It 
would take approximately 3 years to complete the project which would 
begin in 1999 and service would then begin in 2002. Capital costs were 
estimated to be:

                                           [1995 dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2000         2001         2002        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Capital Costs--110 mph................................       $195.9       $177.4       $182.7         $556
Total Capital Costs--125 mph................................        273.4        270.5        278.7        822.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Includes, rolling stock, right of way acquisition, stations and maintenance facilities.

Minnesota
    FRA has granted $200 thousand to the Minnesota Department of 
Transportation to complete phase II of the Tri-State High-Speed Rail 
Study between Minneapolis-St. Paul, Milwaukee and Chicago. Minnesota 
and Wisconsin matched the federal funding and the study is underway by 
TEMS, the contractor chosen by the states. Major tasks of the study are 
engineering and environmental analyses, including evaluations of 
routes, crossings, infrastructure needs, intermodal connections and 
potential station locations in the Twin-Cities-to-Chicago corridor. The 
report is expected to be completed in late 1998.
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama
    The State of Louisiana, together with Mississippi and Alabama, 
completed a preliminary high-speed rail study for a ``Deep South 
Corridor.'' The Department made a grant for $81 thousand in fiscal year 
1997 to continue the preliminary feasibility work. The contractors 
performing the study are Frederick R. Harris and Morrison Knudsen and 
results are expected this summer.
                          planning technology
    Question. What is FRA doing to help communities plan for high-speed 
rail development? How much was or will be spent for this purpose during 
fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999? Please 
respond separately for each year. Is it FRA's view that further federal 
coordination in these targeted high-speed rail corridors is no longer 
needed?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the last year in which funds were 
available, twelve State Departments of Transportation received funding 
from FRA's planning assistance. The table below provides a project 
description and other data including the amount of the non-federal 
share of grants awarded in fiscal year 1997. FRA has focused the grants 
primarily on State DOT's but have also funded a consortium of states in 
the southeast. Planning funds would be available under the reauthorized 
surface transportation program. No planning funds were requested in the 
budgets for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

    FISCAL YEAR 1997 NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR STUDIES
            PLANNING GRANTS (50-50 PERCENT MATCHING) BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Amount of grand award
        State/project description        -------------------------------
                                              Federal       Non-Federal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California: Conduct additional technical        $100,000        $200,000
 planning along the Los Angeles-San
 Diego corridor.........................
Florida: Conduct ridership and market            100,000       7,256,000
 studies for Miami-Orlando-Tampa HSGT
 corridor...............................
Illinois: Complete environmental impact          100,000         100,000
 statement (EIS) for Chicago-St. Louis
 high-speed rail corridor...............
Michigan and Indiana: Update right-of-           118,695         118,695
 way improvements, ridership and revenue
 forecasts along the Detroit-Chicago
 HSGT corridor..........................
Nevada: Evaluate Maglev feasibility in       \1\ 170,000         170,000
 Las Vegas-Southern California corridor.
North Carolina: Conduct Charlotte-               200,000         300,000
 Washington DC corridor environmental
 study..................................
Southern Rapid Rail Commission (LA, MS,           81,305          81,305
 AL): Conduct phase II of the HSGT
 feasibility study of the deep south
 corridor...............................
Virginia: Complete Southeast corridor            100,000         100,000
 rail signal system analysis............
Washington: Conduct EIS and Reliability          200,000         636,000
 and Safety Improvement Study on Pacific
 Northwest Corridor.....................
                                         -------------------------------
      Totals............................   \2\ 1,170,000       8,962,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount deobligated and reapportioned from earlier grant.
\2\ Total includes $100,000 from R&D funds for Virginia.

    FRA continues to believe that federal coordination in these high-
speed rail corridors is necessary to ensure that high-speed rail policy 
continues to reflect the needs and requirements of the states active in 
high-speed rail. One of the ways in which FRA coordinates corridor 
efforts is by holding a meeting with states at the conclusion of the 
bi-annual meetings of the American Association of State Transportation 
and Highway Officials' (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Rail 
Transportation (SCORT).
         status of emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair
    Question. Public Law 105-18, the 1997 emergency supplemental for 
natural disasters and rescissions, provided $18,900,000 to repair and 
rebuild freight rail lines of regional and short-line railroads or 
state-owned railroads damaged by floods in South Dakota, North Dakota, 
Minnesota, and West Virginia. How much of these funds has been 
obligated to date?
    Answer. The total $18.9 million was obligated in fiscal year 1997.
               grant recipients of emergency supplemental
    Question. Please provide a list of the total damage claims by 
railroad, designated grant recipient, description of damage, and 
amount; and where applicable the amount awarded.
    Answer. The designated grant recipients were the Department of 
Transportation for the States of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, and West Virginia. The remaining information requested is 
included in the following chart. The following chart outlines their 
requests and funding:

                                    DISTRIBUTION OF 1997 FLOOD REPAIR FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State/railroad                            Damage type                 Damage claim   Amount awarded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa: I&M Rail.........................  Link Retaining Wall Repair.............        $983,920        $983,920
                                         Preventative Measures..................         683,022  ..............
Minnesota:
    Nobles Rock Railroad...............  Bridge Repair, Culvert Re-  pair.......          78,740          78,740
    Northern Plains Railroad...........  Surfacing..............................         173,713         173,713
    Minnesota Central Railroad.........  Bridge Repair, Culvert Re-  pair.......         395,688         395,688
    Minnesota Northern Railroad........  Crosstie & Ballast Replacement.........         106,858         106,858
    Red River Valley & Western Rail-     Surfacing..............................          29,821          29,821
     road.
    Twin Cities & Western Railroad.....  Signal Repair, Bridge Repair, Culvert           509,746         509,746
                                          Repair, Erosion Repair.
                                         Preventative Measures to Stabilize              614,660  ..............
                                          Embankments.
    Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern          Bridge Repair, Mud Slide Repair........         249,614         249,614
     Railroad.
                                         Preventative Measures to Stabilize            1,532,001  ..............
                                          Subgrade.
North Dakota:
    Red River Valley & Western Rail-     Surfacing, Culvert Repair, Installation       1,105,692       1,105,692
     road.                                of Rip Rap.
                                         Freight Car Repair.....................          43,000  ..............
    Northern Plains Railroad...........  Surfacing, Culvert Repair..............         951,316         951,316
                                         Installation of Rail, Ballast & Rip Rap       5,620,571       4,057,162
    Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western    Culvert Repair, Installation of Ballast       1,864,885       1,614,885
     Railroad.                            & Rip Rap.
South Dakota:
    State-owned Track..................  Installation of Rock Fill & Rip Rap....       4,931,000       4,931,000
                                         Bridge Repair, Mud Slide Repair........       1,250,000  ..............
    D&I Railroad.......................  Bridge Repair, Installation of Ballast          271,208         271,208
                                          & Rip Rap.
                                         Billing Costs..........................          13,560  ..............
    Sisseton Milbank Railroad..........  Surfacing, Installation of Crossties &          550,942         457,742
                                          Ballast.
    Dakota Southern Railway............  Surfacing, Installation of Ballast,             453,571         387,571
                                          Bank Stabilization.
    Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern        Bridge Repair, Culvert Repair,                2,186,124       1,695,324
     Railroad.                            Installation of Ballast & Rip Rap, Mud
                                          Slide Repair.
West Virginia: South Branch Valley       Bridge Repair..........................         900,000         900,000
 Railroad.
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total............................  .......................................      25,499,652      18,900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               need for small railroad capital assistance
    Question. Currently, there are no active federal loan programs for 
short line and regional railroad projects. The local rail freight 
assistance program is also now defunct, though there have been recent 
emergency supplemental appropriations for small railroads damaged in 
floods. Does the Administration think there is an appropriate role for 
Federal infrastructure financing, either through loan mechanisms or 
grants, for regional and short line railroads?
    Answer. As reflected in NEXTEA, the Administration supports 
providing States the flexibility to finance infrastructure investments 
in publicly-owned rail freight facilities. States are in a much better 
position than the Federal Government to make transportation 
infrastructure investment decisions that meet their public needs.
    small railroad capital assistance in proposed nextea legislation
    Question. Please update the Committee on any House or Senate 
provisions in the pending NEXTEA legislation that would authorize 
capital financing programs for regional and short line railroads?
    Answer. Both BESTEA and ISTEA II authorize funding for Light 
Density Rail Line Pilot Projects in States with Rail Plans. The funding 
would be provided as a grant to the State. For projects on privately 
owned rail lines, a private owner financial contribution, commensurate 
with the benefit of the project, would be required. Both Bills require 
the Secretary to study the public interest benefits resulting from the 
projects funded and their contribution to a multi-modal transportation 
system. ISTEA II includes $10 million per year for fiscal years 1998 
through 2003. BESTEA provides $25 million per year for fiscal years 
1998 through 2003.
    BESTEA also includes a provision that repeals the existing loan and 
loan guarantee programs under Title V of the Railroad Revitalization 
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. It creates a new program authorizing 
loan and loan guarantees to State and local governments, government 
sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads, and joint ventures 
that include at least one railroad. The Administration strongly opposes 
this proposal. Financing would be available for acquisition, 
improvement or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or 
facilities, refinancing of outstanding debt, or development of new 
intermodal or railroad facilities. Under this new program, the 
estimated long-term cost of the loan or loan guarantee, which the 
Credit Reform Act requires to be appropriated, may be provided by a 
non-Federal Infrastructure Partner through the payment of a Credit Risk 
Premium, in lieu of or in combination with an appropriation. A limit of 
no more than $5 billion in obligations may be outstanding at any one 
time.
            repayment terms for the alameda corridor project
    Question. In the fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, a direct loan of $58,680,000 was provided under the 
Section 505 redeemable preference share program. This funding secured a 
$400,000,000 loan for the Alameda Corridor rail project. What are the 
terms for repayment of the original federal loan? How will these 
repayments be credited?
    Answer. The fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations 
Act allowed DOT to make a direct loan of $400,000,000 to the Alameda 
Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) to fund in a project intended 
to improve the movements of cargo through ports of Los Angeles and Long 
Beach, CA. The total cost of the project is $2.1 billion. Other funding 
sources include revenue bond proceeds, contributions by the two ports, 
local funds, and State funds.
    The loan is being disbursed over three years in accordance with the 
appropriations act and ACTA's construction schedule, as follows: Fiscal 
year 1997, $140,000,000; fiscal year 1998, $140,000,000; and fiscal 
year 1999, $120,000,000.
    The interest rate for the loan will be set at the 10-year Treasury 
rate during the period of construction. Thereafter, the interest rate 
would be the 30-year Treasury rate through maturity.
    The loan is secured by a rate covenant , and is structured to 
include flexible repayment provisions that allow principal and interest 
payments to be deferred (with interest) in the event of insufficient 
project revenues. The Federal loan's claim on revenues is junior to 
that of ACTA's senior bonds, which are expected to be issued in late 
1998. The combination of the flexible payment structure and the 
subordinate lien will enhance the coverage ratio on ACTA's senior 
bonds. This will facilitate ACTA's ability to obtain an investment 
grade rating on its bonds, thereby substantially reducing its interest 
expense and transaction costs.
                alameda corridor project--default risks
    Question. What are the risks of default on the federal loan? What 
factors may increase those risks? What factors could mitigate those 
risks?
    Answer. Major infrastructure projects like the Alameda Corridor 
face different risks at various points over their life cycle. Most of 
the pre-construction risks relating to factors such as litigation 
challenges, environmental permitting, and political support have been 
successfully surmounted at this date. As the Alameda Corridor 
Transportation Authority (ACTA) enters into the construction phase, it 
will need to address the risk of cost overruns or completion delays 
arising from hidden conditions or unforeseen cost inflation affecting 
the bid price for the construction contracts and engineering services. 
ACTA is seeking to manage the risk on the largest portion of the 
project--the Mid-Corridor segment--by entering into a Design-Build 
contract which will stipulate a guaranteed maximum price/guaranteed 
completion date.
    Upon completion of construction and the opening of the project for 
container shipments, the major risk becomes smaller-than-anticipated 
net revenues (revenues minus expenses) available to pay debt service. 
Operating cost inflation is not a material risk, as the participating 
railroads have agreed to pay annually 100 percent of the project's 
operating costs. Gross revenues might be reduced if there were a major 
and sustained economic downturn in the U.S., or a large decline in 
foreign trade shipped through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 
as a result of overseas economic conditions or domestic competition 
from other ports. A downturn in revenues could be cushioned somewhat by 
the Ports' ability to increase their container fee schedule by up to 3 
percent per annum. Utilization risk is further mitigated by the fact 
that the two Ports themselves are responsible for paying 40 percent of 
the debt service on ACTA's project revenue bonds and the federal loan. 
Competition is unlikely to undermine the San Pedro Bay Ports' dominant 
position in ship-borne commerce due to the large population base 
residing in the immediate area.
                profile of the alameda corridor project
    Question. Please provide a summary of the Alameda Corridor project, 
including major construction benchmarks, sources and levels of 
financing (secured and anticipated), revenue projections, and repayment 
schedule.
    Answer. The information is attached.
    [Clerk's note.--The Alameda Corridor: Semi-Annual Project Status 
and Credit Assessment Report does not appear in the hearing record but 
is available for review in the subcommittee's files.]
           separate funding for the rhode island rail project
    Question. Has consideration been given to incorporating this 
capital freight project within the Northeast Corridor Improvement 
Project? What rationale is there to request funds for this single 
capital freight project, and no others?
    Answer. The Northeast Corridor Improvement Project (NECIP) was 
established by the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 
1976 as a program to undertake those investments in the infrastructure 
of the Northeast Corridor necessary to permit safe and reliable 
intercity rail passenger service that meets statutorily-established 
trip time goals. The Rhode Island Freight Rail Improvement Project 
(FRIP), on the other hand, is an initiative to facilitate the economic 
development of the Davisville/Quonset Point area of Rhode Island. As a 
consequence, the two projects have clearly different goals and the 
Administration believes that it is appropriate to request the funds 
separately. The rationale behind requesting 50 percent Federal funding 
for this particular freight project (the State is obligated to provide 
the remainder) goes to the overall regional importance of the 
Davisville/Quonset Point development and to the overlap between this 
project and the Northeast Corridor for a 22 mile stretch with the 
resulting need to insure that the developing freight transportation 
requirements do not interfere with Amtrak's efforts to establish high-
speed rail on the Northeast Corridor.
              total funding for rhode island rail project
    Question. Please provide a funding history of the project, 
detailing funding sources, amounts, and project benchmarks, by fiscal 
year, from the project's inception to completion.
    Answer. A total of $23 million in Federal funds have been 
appropriated for the Rhode Island Freight Improvement Project: $5 
million in 1995; $1 million in 1996; $7 million in 1997; and, $10 
million in 1998. All of these funds require a dollar-for-dollar match 
from the State. FRA has included $10 million in its fiscal year 1999 
budget request for this project.
    Approximately $2.5 million has been expended, to date, for 
construction activities and a limited amount of engineering. Most 
project implementation activities have been held in abeyance while the 
necessary environmental documentation was prepared and the State 
received public support through a referendum for bonding authority to 
match Federal funds. The latter project prerequisite was completed last 
November and the former will be completed this month with the scheduled 
publication of the Record of Decision. Significant additional 
engineering, materials purchase and construction will be undertaken 
during the 1998 work season. A detailed construction schedule is being 
prepared with all work scheduled to be completed by late 2001.
               alaska railroad capital proposed in nextea
    Question. Please update the Committee on any House or Senate 
provisions in the pending NEXTEA legislation that would authorize 
capital grants to the Alaska Railroad.
    Answer. The BESTEA authorizes $5,250,000 for each of fiscal years 
1998-2003 in general fund appropriations and $4,800,000 for each of 
fiscal years 1998-2003 in fixed guide way modernization funds from the 
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for capital improvements to 
Alaska Railroad passenger operations . The ISTEA II would authorize 
States without Amtrak service to spend funds made available from the 
Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund on capital improvements 
and operating support for intercity rail passenger service.
                       federal subsidy for amtrak
    Question. If Amtrak adheres to its March 1998 Strategic Business 
Plan, will the railroad be independent from federal subsidy by 2002?
    Answer. The Administration's goal since 1994 has been to eliminate 
Amtrak's dependence on Federal operating subsidies by 2002, recognizing 
that all forms of transportation receive some measure of Federal 
capital investment and that such capital investments in Amtrak would 
continue past 2002. If Amtrak's March 1998 Strategic Business plan is 
fully funded, as has been proposed in the Administration's fiscal year 
1999 budget request, the Corporation would no longer require federal 
operating assistance by 2002.
              blue ribbon panel recommendations on amtrak
    Question. Does the administration's request for $621,000,000 in 
capital funds for Amtrak reflect the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations 
to separate Amtrak's infrastructure management from its operations?
    Answer. The Administration's request does not reflect the funding 
required to implement these recommendations. Instead, the request 
reflects the funding required to implement Amtrak's five year strategic 
plan, which the Administration believes is the optimal course of action 
at this time.
           need for legislative action for amtrak flexibility
    Question. Please explain the Administration's position that no 
specific legislative provision is required to give Amtrak the 
flexibility to use the same capital project investment criteria as was 
specified for the Federal Transit Administration in Sec. 316 of Public 
Law 105-66.
    Answer. The capital project investment criteria included in section 
316 of the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act was required in order to adjust an existing 
statutory definition of the term capital project for the purposes of 
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funded projects. There is no 
similar existing statutory definition of capital project with respect 
to the expenditure of appropriated funds by Amtrak for capital 
projects. The proposal to give Amtrak the flexibility to use the same 
capital project investment criteria as FTA grantees is a reasonable 
interpretation of the term ``capital'' as used in Amtrak's authorizing 
and appropriating legislation. In addition, Amtrak's authorization 
specifically provides that amounts appropriated under the authorization 
shall be paid to Amtrak under the budget request of the Secretary as 
approved or modified by Congress when the amounts are appropriated (49 
U.S.C. 24104). As a result, the Department takes the position that the 
language concerning the capital definition in the budget justification 
accompanying the Administration's request would be adequate for Amtrak 
to conclude that the new capital definition is consistent with both the 
intent of Congress and the authorization unless Congress were to 
specifically reject this interpretation through the appropriations act. 
However, the Administration is willing to work with Congress and to 
submit any document needed to secure Congress' blessings.
        activities allowed under tra and flexibility definition
    Question. For what specific activities does the Taxpayer Relief Act 
allow Amtrak to use the 1998 and 1999 tax refund allocations? How does 
this differ from activities allowed under the expanded capital 
definition the administration is requesting for Amtrak in the fiscal 
year 1999 appropriations request?
    Answer. Section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 identifies 
the following as qualified expenses for funding provided to Amtrak 
under that section: the acquisition of equipment, rolling stock, and 
other capital improvements; the upgrading of maintenance facilities; 
the maintenance of existing equipment in intercity rail passenger 
service; and the payment of interest and principal on obligations 
incurred for such acquisition, upgrading and maintenance.
    The capital definition applied to projects funded by the Federal 
Transit Administration, which the administration proposes to apply to 
Amtrak capital grants, would include these activities (with the 
exception of payment of interest) as well as the maintenance of 
existing infrastructure used for intercity rail passenger service.
           new definition--maximum amount of maintenance cost
    Question. If the FTA's expanded capital definition were applied to 
Amtrak capital, what is the maximum amount of the $621,000,000 in the 
fiscal year 1999 request that could be used for maintenance of 
equipment, infrastructure and facilities?
    Answer. Amtrak estimates that the maximum amount of expenses that 
would be incurred for maintenance of equipment, infrastructure and 
facilities in fiscal year 1999 and eligible for capital funding under 
the FTA's expanded capital definition would total approximately $542 
million.
                 funding control mechanisms for amtrak
    Question. What control mechanisms are in place for ensuring that 
both TRA and appropriated funds are utilized in a manner consistent 
with law?
    Answer. There are extensive control mechanisms to assure the 
Congress, the Department and Amtrak's Board of Directors, that Amtrak 
is using this funding in a manner consistent with law. First, Amtrak 
will enter into an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (for the 
TRA funds) and a grant agreement with FRA (for the appropriated funds) 
that will establish the allowable uses for these funds and appropriate 
reporting requirements. In addition, the fiscal year 1999 budget 
proposes that Amtrak be required to deposit the funds it will receive 
in fiscal year 1999 under the TRA into the Capital Grant account and to 
make release of the TRA funds, as well as the $621 million in fiscal 
year 1999 capital appropriations, contingent upon creation of a 
thorough and prudent capital investment plan. Next, Amtrak's Inspector 
General regularly reviews Amtrak's performance under such agreements 
and reports to the Board of Directors (including the Department) on his 
findings. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (ARAA) provides for 
Department of Transportation's Inspector General to conduct an ongoing 
review of Amtrak for each year that Amtrak receives a Federal subsidy. 
The ARAA also establishes the independent Amtrak Reform Council which 
is required to report to the Congress quarterly on Amtrak's use of TRA 
funds. Finally, the GAO undertakes regular reviews of Amtrak's 
finances.
                   income from express pilot program
    Question. Please compare the amount of income anticipated from the 
express pilot program in fiscal year 1997 and thus far in fiscal year 
1998 with the amount of funds actually generated by this program. How 
will this shortfall against anticipated income affect Amtrak's net loss 
in fiscal year 1998, and what will the Corporation do to mitigate these 
losses? What level of income from the express pilot program is 
anticipated for fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. Amtrak's projected net income from the express pilot 
program as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Projected net
             Fiscal year                   income            Actual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997................................  ................         -$100,000
1998 (through March 31).............       $12,000,000        -3,100,000
1998................................    \1\ 61,000,000    \2\ 11,100,000
1999................................    \3\ 20,900,000  ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ September 1997 Business Plan.
\2\ Current projection.
\3\ Fiscal Year 1999 Business Plan.

    The fiscal year 1998 business plan shortfall from the express pilot 
is factored into Amtrak's projected cash shortfall of $200 million. 
Amtrak will mitigate this shortfall through borrowing from its short-
term line of credit and ``borrowing'' short-term from Amtrak's separate 
TRA account.
                   impact of deferring capital grants
    Question. Amtrak has traditionally received its capital 
appropriation in July of each year. Given that the money contained in 
the Administration's budget would not be available until July 1999, 
will this create any short-term funding shortfalls and if so, how will 
this be addressed?
    Answer. If Amtrak did not receive its fiscal year 1999 
appropriation until July 1, 1999, it would be required to ``borrow'' 
from funding made available under the Taxpayer Relief Act during the 
first three quarters of fiscal year 1999 to meet expenses that would 
otherwise be funded from appropriated funds. The Administration agrees 
with Amtrak's position that the TRA funds should be limited to 
investments with high returns. Moreover, the delay in not making 
appropriated general capital funds available until July 1, has no 
material impact on outlays during any given fiscal year. As a 
consequence, the Administration does not object to Amtrak's proposal 
that the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for general capital be made 
available on the first day of fiscal year 1999 and is willing to submit 
any document to that effect.
                      impact of amtrak reform act
    Question. The reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act of 1997 provide Amtrak with additional flexibility 
to address its financial problems. Specifically, how will these reforms 
contribute to Amtrak's short-term and long-term financial viability?
    Answer. The provision of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act 
of 1997 (ARAA) with the greatest implications for Amtrak's financial 
viability is the stated Federal commitment to provide adequate funding 
over the next five years, with authorizations totaling $5.163 billion 
through fiscal year 2002. This Federal commitment will help Amtrak to 
move away from its past ``hand-to-mouth'' existence and allow Amtrak to 
make the investments necessary to make the company financial viable in 
the long-term while also addressing Amtrak's short-term operating and 
maintenance needs. The ARAA also provides Amtrak an increased ability 
to act like a private business. The statutory changes contained in 
ARAA: repeal the past statutory definitions of the system which Amtrak 
must operate; clarify the procedures used to reduce routes and 
services; eliminate the requirement that Amtrak provide unprofitable 
services requested by States while recognizing that there is a role for 
States in supporting services important to them; permit Amtrak to 
negotiate with the commuter railroads over the appropriate level of 
payments the commuter railroads must make for the use of Amtrak's 
Northeast Corridor; and permit Amtrak and its employees to negotiate 
over contract provisions addressing possible contracting out of work 
performed by Amtrak employees and the appropriate levels of severance 
benefits. These ``reforms'' will enhance Amtrak's ability to undertake 
needed long-term investments by permitting the Corporation to structure 
a system consistent with the transportation market as well as the 
national transportation priorities. Amtrak also will be able to improve 
the cost-effectiveness of the service it provides. Cumulatively, if all 
of the provisions of the ARAA are fully implemented, the Amtrak of five 
years from now will be much stronger financially and better positioned 
to address the evolving challenges of the next century.
                         amtrak funding history
    Question. Please provide a funding history, by fiscal year, of 
Amtrak's federal appropriations and other federal funds from the 
Corporation's creation to present.
    Answer. The information follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

                                                          Amtrak Federal
        Fiscal year                                       appropriations
1971..........................................................      40.0
1972..........................................................     170.0
1973..........................................................       9.1
1974..........................................................     140.0
1975..........................................................     276.5
1976..........................................................     659.1
1977..........................................................     800.7
1978..........................................................   1,116.0
1979..........................................................   1,234.0
1980..........................................................   1,223.4
1981..........................................................   1,246.3
1982..........................................................     905.0
1983..........................................................     895.0
1984..........................................................     816.4
1985..........................................................     711.6
1986..........................................................     602.7
1987..........................................................     624.0
1988..........................................................     607.5
1989..........................................................     603.6
1990..........................................................     629.1
1991..........................................................     815.1
1992..........................................................     856.0
1993..........................................................     891.1
1994..........................................................     908.7
1995..........................................................     972.0
1996..........................................................     750.0
1997..........................................................     843.0
1998..........................................................     594.0
1998--Taxpayer Relief Act.....................................   1,092.0
                 amtrak's end-of-year operating losses
    Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year operating losses, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation 
to present.
    Answer. Amtrak's net end-of-year operating losses between fiscal 
year 1971 and fiscal year 1997 (defined as total expenses less total 
expenses) were as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

                                                               Operating
        Fiscal year                                               losses
1971..........................................................      91.6
1972..........................................................     150.8
1973..........................................................     158.6
1974..........................................................     272.7
1975..........................................................     352.5
1976..........................................................     342.6
1977..........................................................     536.7
1978..........................................................     581.7
1979..........................................................     619.8
1980 \1\......................................................      27.2
1981 \1\......................................................     179.1
1982..........................................................     795.1
1983..........................................................     804.9
1984..........................................................     763.3
1985..........................................................     774.3
1986..........................................................     702.2
1987..........................................................     698.5
1988..........................................................     650.4
1989..........................................................     665.5
1990..........................................................     703.4
1991..........................................................     721.6
1992..........................................................     711.8
1993..........................................................     731.0
1994..........................................................   1,076.8
1995..........................................................     808.2
1996..........................................................     763.6
1997..........................................................     761.9

\1\ In fiscal year 1983, Amtrak changed the method of depreciation for 
track structures. While the operating loss estimates above reflect the 
change for fiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1982, the effects of that 
change on fiscal year 1981 and fiscal year 1980, estimated at $40.9 
million, are not included.
Note: Data is in constant dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     amtrak's end-of-year debt load
    Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year debt load, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation to 
present.
    Answer. Amtrak's net end-of-year debt load between fiscal year 1971 
and fiscal year 1997 has been as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

                                                             Outstanding
        Fiscal year                                                 debt
1971..........................................................      25.7
1972..........................................................       7.1
1973..........................................................     109.5
1974..........................................................     297.5
1975..........................................................     484.9
1976..........................................................     753.2
1977..........................................................     762.4
1978..........................................................     885.9
1979..........................................................     972.6
1980..........................................................   1,236.0
1981..........................................................   1,784.4
1982..........................................................   2,342.9
1983..........................................................   2,743.5
1984..........................................................   3,004.6
1985..........................................................   3,185.5
1986..........................................................      23.8
1987..........................................................      22.7
1988..........................................................      35.9
1989..........................................................     126.5
1990..........................................................     183.8
1991..........................................................     287.9
1992..........................................................     418.8
1993..........................................................     492.3
1994..........................................................     770.3
1995..........................................................     836.9
1996..........................................................     986.9
1997..........................................................   1,336.4

    In fiscal year 1988, two promissory notes, issued by the Federal 
Government to fund the acquisition of and improvements to property and 
equipment, were reclassified as Federal Paid-In Capital. fiscal year 
1986 and fiscal year 1987 debt levels were restated to reflect this 
reclassification.
                        route structure changes
    Question. What plans does Amtrak have to adjust its route structure 
in calendar 1998, in order to decrease the railroad's operating losses? 
What route structure adjustments were made in calendar 1997?
    Answer. In calendar 1997, Amtrak eliminated service on the route 
from Denver, CO to Portland, OR (the Pioneer) and the route between 
Salt Lake City, UT to Los Angeles, CA (the Desert Wind) due to 
financial constraints. The only route change presently expected in 
calendar 1998 is an extension of the State-supported San Jose, CA to 
Roseville, CA Capitols from Roseville to Colfax, CA.
    Within existing routes, Amtrak has and will be altering the 
frequency of service. In 1997, Amtrak eliminated the demonstration 
train, the Gulf Coast Limited, between New Orleans, LA and Mobile, AL 
(this route continues to be served by the Sunset Limited), and returned 
the following routes to daily service: Chicago, IL to New Orleans, LA 
(City of New Orleans), Chicago, IL to Seattle, WA, and Portland, OR 
(Empire Builder), and Chicago, IL to Emeryville, CA (California 
Zephyr). In addition, the Boston, MA to Washington, D.C. Night Owl 
(renamed the Twilight Shoreliner) was extended to Newport News, VA. The 
Los Angeles, CA to Sanford, FL Sunset Limited was extended to Orlando, 
FL and two additional frequencies of the State-supported San Diegans 
were established between Los Angeles, CA and San Diego, CA. Service 
adjustments within existing routes that have taken place or will take 
place in calendar 1998 are: the addition of two daily frequencies on 
the State-supported Capitols between San Jose, CA and Sacramento, CA, 
the addition of two weekly frequencies from Chicago, IL to San Antonio, 
TX with continuing service to Los Angeles, CA (Texas Eagle), an 
additional daily frequency between New York City and Albany, NY, 
between Portland, OR and Seattle, WA and from Bakersfield, CA to 
Sacramento, CA (San Joaquins), and an additional northbound daily 
frequency from Albany , NY and Rutland, VT (Ethan Allen Express).
    Amtrak just recently initiated its first-ever major market-driven 
review of its system and services. When this study is completed in late 
1998, Amtrak's new Board of Directors and management will be in better 
position to view route and service structure in the context of meeting 
market demand and the long-term financial viability of the Corporation.
                          loans made to amtrak
    Question. Please list the loans made to Amtrak in fiscal year 1997 
and thus far in fiscal year 1998 (through March 31). Please include 
information on the lending institution, amount of loan, repayment 
period, and interest rate.
    Answer. The following loans were made to Amtrak in fiscal year 1997 
and through the first half of fiscal year 1998:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Lenders                     Amount       Loan date        Rate (percent)              Term
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NationsBank N.A., Kreditanstalt fur       $33,800,000     12/23/96  5.5805.................  20 years.
 Wideraufbau (KfW).
NationsBank N.A., KfW................      18,200,000      3/31/97  5.5946.................  19 years.
NationsBank N.A., KfW................      49,400,000      6/26/97  5.5210.................  20 years.
Norlease Inc., KfW...................      52,000,000     12/23/97  5.5766.................  20 years.
US Bancorp Leasing & Fin., KfW, ING        65,000,000      3/27/97  5.6961.................  19 years.
 Lease B.V.
BA Leasing & Capital Corp., KfW,           13,000,000      6/27/97  6.3412.................  17 years.
 Columbia Life Insurance Co.,
 Security Life of Denver Insurance Co.
BA Leasing & Capital Corp., KfW,           44,200,000     10/17/97  5.91795................  17 years.
 Columbia Life Insurance Co.,
 Security Life of Denver Insurance Co.
State of Texas.......................       5,600,000      6/03/97  Floating rate..........  25 months.
GE Capital Corp......................      16,700,000     12/30/97  6.4341.................  18 years.
GE Capital Corp......................       3,800,000     12/30/97  5.5986.................  15 years.
GE Capital Corp., Swiss Reinsurance        96,500,000     12/31/97  5.5980.................  20 years.
 America Corp., American Re-Insurance
 Co., NAC Reinsurance Co., Universal
 Underwriters Insurance Co.,
 Chartwell Reinsurance Corp., Everest
 Reinsurance Co., Fidelity & Deposit
 Co. (MD).
NationsBank, N.A., KfW, Columbine          32,000,000      3/27/98  4.6906.................  17 years.
 Life Insurance Co.
Export Development Corp., MBK Rail        700,000,000     12/02/97  Floating rate..........  20 years.
 Finance Corp.
Export Development Corp., MBK Rail        120,000,000     12/02/97  Floating rate..........  20 years.
 Finance Corp.
Bank of America, Bank of Tokyo-           170,000,000     12/18/97  Floating rate..........  1 year.
 Mitsubishi, Chase Manhattan, First
 National Bank of MD, Industrial Bank
 of Japan, NationsBank, CIBC, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    private bids to purchase amtrak
    Question. Please inform the Committee of any pending bids by 
private companies to purchase Amtrak lines or run Amtrak operations.
    Answer. The FRA is aware of no such bids that could be considered 
``pending''. On May 26, 1997, Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc., 
wrote Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater requesting a meeting 
with representatives of the Department to begin negotiations for the 
sale or lease of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. The Federal Railroad 
Administrator wrote to Guilford's president, David A. Fink, to invite 
representatives of that railroad to meet with FRA staff to discuss the 
specifics of this proposal. Since there has been no follow-up from 
Guilford to set up such a meeting, FRA has concluded that this proposal 
is not being actively pursued by the railroad.
                     scope of amtrak reform council
    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the Amtrak 
Reform Council, and summarize the council's scope of responsibility 
under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act.
    Answer. Nine of the 11 members of the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC) 
have been named; however, no meeting has yet been scheduled. The scope 
of the ARC's responsibilities, as defined by Sections 203, 204, and 209 
of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act are: (1) evaluate Amtrak's 
performance and make recommendations to Amtrak for achieving further 
cost containment and productivity improvements and financial reforms; 
(2) monitor savings achieved from work rule changes contained in 
Amtrak's new labor agreements and provide Congress with an annual 
report on such savings; (3) report quarterly to the Congress on the use 
of funding received by Amtrak under Section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief 
Act of 1997; and, (4) if the ARC finds at any time after December 2, 
1999 that Amtrak's business performance will prevent it from meeting 
certain statutorily-established performance goals, inform the President 
and Congress of such finding and, within 90 days, prepare and submit to 
the Congress an action plan for a restructured and rationalized 
national intercity rail passenger system.
           status of appointments to the amtrak reform board
    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the 
appointment of the new Amtrak Reform Board. What time sensitive trigger 
mechanisms are included in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act 
provisions regarding appointment and confirmation of board members?
    Answer. The President's nominations for the members of the new 
Reform Board of Directors are expected in the near future. If the 
committee of jurisdiction has not reported the nominations by June 1, 
1998, then the committee will be discharged from further consideration 
of the nominations and the nominations will be placed on the Executive 
Calendar. It shall then be in order at any time to move to proceed to 
the consideration of the nominations without any intervening action or 
debate. After no more than 10 hours of debate, the Senate shall then 
proceed without intervening action to vote on the nominations. If the 
Reform Board has not assumed its responsibilities by July 1, 1998, all 
provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 1999 and for 
subsequent years cease to be effective.
                     number of employees at amtrak
    Question. How many people are employed by Amtrak? Please provide a 
table or chart divided by SBU's, showing all employment centers and 
number of employees at each center.
    Answer. As of the end of fiscal year 1997, Amtrak had 23,548 
employees. This employment was organized as follows:

                                                               Number of
        Employment center                                      employees
Intercity SBU..................................................... 5,887
Northeast Corridor SBU............................................12,073
Amtrak West SBU................................................... 2,733
Corporate/Service Centers......................................... 2,855
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................23,548
                        oa pay-related increases
    Question. In the fiscal year 1999 OA budget, $1,117,000 is 
characterized as for ``non-discretionary increases''. The pay related 
costs are $709,000--an average increase of $4,655 for each of the 152 
employees in the Office of the Administrator. Please detail more fully 
what these pay-related costs are, and explain why they are ``non-
discretionary''.
    Answer. Increase reflects fiscal year 1999 pay raise ($271K), 
annualization of the fiscal year 1998 pay raise ($87K), and other pay-
related costs ($351K). Other pay-related costs include within-grades, 
adjustments to retirement contributions based on the number of FERS vs 
CSRS employees and laws governing federal contributions for each 
retirement system, merit bonuses, terminal leave payouts and overtime.
    These costs are non-discretionary as they are governed by law and 
as such, FRA must pay them. The Office of the Administrator account 
does not have sufficient funds in the non-pay categories to absorb 
these increases.
                          oa non-pay increases
    Question. The other component of ``non-discretionary increases'' is 
$408,000 for communications, computer, and information technology 
systems. Please detail these expenditures. How much is for telephone 
and communications costs? How much is for computer systems, i.e., to 
replace and upgrade hardware and software and to enhance automation 
systems? How much is for technology systems and information technology? 
Please prepare a table of each of these expenditures for the last five 
years. Why are these costs ``non-discretionary''.
    Answer. The following table details OA's fiscal year 1999 non-
discretionary increase of $408 thousand:

        Object class                                          Net change
Travel........................................................   $52,000
Rent/Communications...........................................  -175,000
Contractual Services \1\......................................   421,000
Supplies......................................................    26,000
Equipment.....................................................   101,000
Grants........................................................   -17,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   408,000

\1\ Includes contracts, consulting services, TASC, common services, 
agreements, information technology, and other.

    Of the $408 thousand, $203 thousand will support information 
technology.
    These costs are non-discretionary as they reflect known adjustments 
to fiscal year 1998 and must be paid if services/products are to be 
procured. Adjustments include inflation, vendor/contract increases, GSA 
rate increases, increased utilities costs, and/or other support needed 
to maintain on-going work in support of FRA's program offices. The OA 
account does not have sufficient funds to absorb these increases, nor 
can it operate at a reduced level without compromising current 
productivity levels.
    The following table details OA expenditures in these object classes 
for the past five years:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                       Object class                       ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1993       1994       1995       1996       1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel...................................................        271        210        274        192        217
Rent/Comm................................................         36         42         45         43        311
Contract Services........................................      3,249      2,690      2,577      2,879      2,575
Supplies.................................................        188        196        695        218        162
Equipment................................................        312        579      1,493        238        683
Grants...................................................      4,763        529      2,977        485         27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        oa unobligated balances
    Question. Please identify any unobligated balances in the Office of 
the Administrator.
    Answer. FRA projects an unobligated balance of $2.105 million. This 
includes $935 thousand earmarked for Alaska Railroad Liabilities, 
specifically the environmental compliance project which is still active 
and not settled, and approximately $1.170 million held in reserve for 
the annual mortgage payment of the Washington Union Station. 
Appropriation language states that FRA is responsible for payment on 
the first deed of trust from OA unobligated balances if the Union 
Station Redevelopment Corporation cannot make the payment.
                  personnel in the safety law division
    Question. Please prepare a table for each of the last three years 
indicating the number of personnel in the Safety Division of the Office 
of the Chief Counsel.
    Answer. The information follows: 1995, 27 employees; 1996, 27 
employees; and 1997, 27 employees.
    In addition to the members of the Safety Law Division, a senior 
member of the General Law Division serves as Hearing Officer for 
engineer qualifications appeals and both the Chief Counsel and the 
Deputy Chief Counsel spend large amounts of their time on safety 
matters.
           additional appropriations for compliance functions
    Question. Several years ago the Office of Chief Counsel received 
additional appropriations to conduct certain compliance/enforcement-
related functions. Please specify the amount of these funds which are 
now reflected in the base of the fiscal year 1999 proposed budget and 
discuss the amounts actually used in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 
1998 versus the amounts actually appropriated.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1995, FRA sought $386,000 to fund the costs 
of administrative litigation related to the FRA safety program (e.g., 
engineer qualifications, hazardous materials enforcement, 
disqualification of unfit railroad employees and emergency orders). FRA 
at that time employed, through a reimbursable agreement, administrative 
law judges (ALJ's) from the Department's Office of Hearings to preside 
over the hearings in these cases. FRA's funding request was based on an 
Office of Hearings estimate that each engineer qualification case would 
cost approximately $33,000, and FRA's anticipation of having 15 cases 
involving a review of railroads' decisions to revoke or deny engineers' 
certificates. To reduce the administrative litigation costs to the 
agency, in fiscal year 1996 FRA decided to discontinue using DOT ALJ's 
and instead use an FRA attorney as a hearing officer, in addition to 
handling non-safety FRA legal matters. The fiscal year 1996 and fiscal 
year 1997 budgets reflect a reduction of $368,000 as a result of this 
decision. The fiscal year 1997 Enacted Budget contained no funding for 
ALJ's and the same is true for the fiscal year 1998 request. FRA's 
hearing officer is currently handling all of FRA's administrative 
litigation.
                enforcement actions in last three years
    Question. For each of the last three years, please prepare a table 
describing the number of enforcement actions, the amount of civil 
penalty assessments and those collected or settled, and the number and 
type of violation reports submitted. What percentage of these actions 
have come from Federal inspectors and what percentage from state 
inspectors?
    Answer. The information follows:

                             CIVIL PENALTY ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1995-97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Cases         Dollars        Cases        Dollars
                      Fiscal year                        transmitted     assessed     closed \1\     collected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995...................................................       1,447      $10,897,600       1,313      $5,230,044
1996...................................................         827        5,157,500         970       3,588,765
1997...................................................       1,014        7,514,750         846       3,792,380
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Many cases are closed in years after the year they were transmitted. Accordingly, the cases transmitted and
  cases closed are largely groups of cases.


 PERCENTAGE OF VIOLATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATE/FEDERAL INSPECTORS,
                          FISCAL YEARS 1995-97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year--
                                              --------------------------
                                                 1995     1996     1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Inspectors...........................       91       91       88
State Inspectors.............................        9        9       12
------------------------------------------------------------------------


        VIOLATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY TYPE, FISCAL YEARS 1995-97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year--
                     Type                     --------------------------
                                                 1995     1996     1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AD...........................................       30       30       95
AR...........................................       84       41      128
BW...........................................        5        5        1
EO...........................................       11  .......  .......
EP...........................................  .......        2        5
EQ...........................................       48       18       29
FCS..........................................      276      204      225
GC...........................................  .......        2       20
GS...........................................  .......        1  .......
HMT..........................................      419      273      359
HS...........................................    1,440      148      222
HSR..........................................      335       76      453
LI...........................................      280      194      376
NE...........................................        3  .......  .......
REM..........................................       19        9       16
ROP..........................................       53       32       25
ROR..........................................        3  .......        4
RSP..........................................       13        9       13
RW...........................................  .......  .......        4
SA...........................................      411      242      584
SI...........................................       86       74       77
TS...........................................       82       55       69
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................    3,598    1,415    2,707
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   policy and immediate office fte's
    Question. For each of the last three years, please list separately 
the number of FTE's in the Office of Policy and Program Development as 
well as in the Immediate Office of the Administrator.
    Answer. The information follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year--
                                    ------------------------------------
               Office                                             1998
                                       1995     1996     1997   estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Policy...................       30       28       23        22
Immediate Office...................       11       10       10        10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          oa--contract support
    Question. For each of the last three years, please list the amount 
actually spent on technical assistance and contractor support for the 
Office of the Administrator and compare these amounts to the amount 
appropriated for the activity.
    Answer. The information follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
         Contract support         --------------------------------------
                                       1995         1996         1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacted..........................     $651,000     $578,000     $549,000
Actual obligations...............  \1\ 744,000      355,000      417,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes carryover funds.

                      office of the administrator
    Question. Is FRA the only DOT agency participating in the new 
electronic grant pilot project? Is this a multi-year effort? If not, 
have other agencies requested additional funding for this project?
    Answer. FRA is not the only DOT agency participating in this 
project. The electronic grant pilot project is a Department-wide 
initiative, funded by all DOT agencies. This is a multi-year effort and 
all DOT agencies have requested funding in fiscal year 1999.
                         oa--non-pay increases
    Question. What is the empirical basis for the $853,000 requested on 
page 18 for inflation/vendor increases? How was this amount determined?
    Answer. Using the fiscal year 1998 Enacted as the base level, FRA 
calculates inflation (2.3 percent) increases for those budget line 
items that are inflation sensitive such as travel, rent, contracts, 
training, and information technology. FRA then reviews all on-going 
services or contracts to see if increases are automatically built in 
for the coming year or if vendors are planning to raise their prices in 
the coming year. Finally, FRA determines if any other factors may 
increase on-going work. For example, in the OA Offices, FRA may be 
funding the same number of training courses in fiscal year 1999 as in 
fiscal year 1998, however, the courses may cost more (or less) in 
fiscal year 1999. FRA may have the same number of computers but plan to 
use them more or differently in fiscal year 1999, driving costs up. 
Increases in paper, postage, air rates, GSA rates for travel and per 
diem, OST agreements, or policy directives can affect the costs even if 
current services are maintained and not expanded.
    It should be noted that the increase of $853K is offset by non-
recurring costs of $445K for a net increase of $408K. FRA is as 
diligent tracking cost reductions as it is with cost increases.
    In addition, almost all of the non-pay object classes in the OA 
show an fiscal year 1999 estimate that is either equal to or lower than 
the fiscal year 1997 actual or the fiscal year 1998 estimate.
              funding and projects of civil rights office
    Question. For each of the last three years, please specify the 
amount appropriated and the amount spent for civil rights activities. 
How much is requested for fiscal year 1999? Please list the civil 
rights activities which have been completed for each of the last three 
years. What activities are planned for fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. The following table provides expenditures and appropriated 
funding for the last three years for civil rights activities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1995            1996            1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated....................................................        $244,000        $256,000        $260,000
Actual Expenditures.............................................         238,000         250,000         257,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA is requesting $301 thousand for fiscal year 1999.
Fiscal year 1995
    An action plan for enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act was developed.
    In accordance with the Federal Railroad Administration's Federal 
Assistance program, twenty-seven out of forty-three recipients' 
affirmative action programs were reviewed by desk audit. These reviews 
were performed in order to determine compliance with regulatory 
requirements, 49 CFR part 265.
    The FRA Office of Civil Rights, authorized by the Railroad 
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act, monitored the performance of, 
and assisted recipient railroads doing business with minority and 
Women-owned business enterprises. One of the recipients, the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), surpassed its dollar goal 
commitment of $65 million for fiscal year 1995 by awarding $77.5 
million to minority and women-owned businesses. This reflected 119 
percent for dollar goals achieved. Their overall contract dollars 
awarded totaled $470.5 million, reflecting 16 percent for minority 
participation. Since 1990, Amtrak has consistently exceeded its MBE/WBE 
contract dollar goal for minority participation.
Fiscal year 1996
    The MBE/WBE contract dollar goal for fiscal year 1996 was $160.5 
million. Contract dollars awarded to MBE's/WBE's for fiscal year 1996 
totaled $208.9 million, reflecting 131 percent of the total dollar 
goals achieved. The overall contract dollars awarded totaled $1.8 
billion, reflecting 11 percent for minority participation. Contract 
dollars awarded to women-owned businesses (White) totaled $110.8 
million and $98 million to other minority concerns.
    The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) surpassed its 
dollar goal commitment of $70 million for fiscal year 1996 by awarding 
$102.5 million to minority and women-owned businesses. This reflected 
147 percent for dollar goals achieved. Their overall contract dollars 
awarded totaled $585.6 million, 18 percent for minority participation. 
Amtrak awarded $37.2 million to women-owned businesses (White) and 
$65.2 million to other minority concerns. Since 1990, Amtrak has 
consistently exceeded its MBE/WBE contract dollar goal for minority 
participation.
Fiscal year 1997
    In accordance with the Civil Rights Offices' Customer Service Plan, 
the Office shared with its internal and external customers pertinent 
equal employment opportunity (EEO) documents and information which 
impact minorities and women in the work force and the EEO program. 
Subject information included reports on Sexual Harassment, ``Glass 
Ceiling'' and FRA's Affirmative Employment Program.
    Coordinated two guest speakers from FRA's Transportation Partners 
to participate in a panel discussion at Secretary Slater's Garrett A. 
Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Program Roundtable on 
October 30, 1997.
    A staff member represented FRA on the Garrett Morgan Internet 
Committee where the agency's Garrett A. Morgan website and the 
Department's Garrett A Morgan homepage was undertaken and completed.
    Staff member participated in two events, in support of the Garrett 
A. Morgan Initiative. Approximately forty students, ages 11 to 17 
represented the Association of Renewal in education, and the 1997 
Pathways to Freedom Programs.
    Civil Rights staff worked with Amtrak's Office of Consumer Affairs 
to process Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaints. Newly 
established procedures agreed upon by the Civil Rights Office and 
Amtrak's Regulatory Affairs office are beginning to work, by decreasing 
the time necessary to process ADA complaints involving Amtrak's vast 
rail network.
    The vetoed fiscal year 1997 Supplemental Appropriations bill 
included funding for repair of flood-damaged shortline and regional 
railroad track in the Northern Plain States. In anticipation of 
enactment of the Bill, review of Affirmative Action Plans for the 
States of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota was completed.
Fiscal years 1998 and 1999
    In partnership with the Departmental Office of Civil Rights, FRA's 
Office of Civil Rights is currently reassessing its programs and 
policies and the way its conducts business. Civil Rights is partnering 
with the Office of Human Resources in the implementation and expansion 
of the Diversity Management Program, Title IX of the Education 
Amendments Act of 1972 and the Summer Internship Program. The FRA 
sought feedback from the Departmental Office of Civil Rights, in 
restructuring a position description for the Director of Civil Rights 
to reflect current law, regulations and the Secretary's initiatives. A 
broad spectrum recruitment effort will be used to fill the vacant Civil 
Rights Office position.
    Additionally, the Office of Civil Rights plans to continue its 
support of the Garrett A. Morgan outreach efforts with Transportation 
partners, Community Organizations and Schools. Currently, research is 
underway searching for the best EEO training consultant firm in order 
to provide EEO Awareness training for managers and supervisors. 
Further, EEO Counseling training for FRA Counselors is scheduled during 
the last quarter of fiscal year 1998. The office is in the process of 
establishing better lines of communication with FRA's EEO counselors by 
establishing quarterly conference calls to discuss potential problems, 
current counseling activity and their monthly reporting requirements.
    In fiscal year 1999, the office will engage managers in the overall 
development of the agency Affirmative Employment Program.
                       garrett a. morgan program
    Question. How has the FRA participated in the Garrett A. Morgan 
program during fiscal year 1998? What is planned for fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. FRA did not contribute any funds for this program in fiscal 
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. However, FRA will participate in the 
following activities:
Fiscal year 1998
    Completion of FRA's Garrett A. Morgan technology and Transportation 
Futures Program web site.
    Presentations relating to the initiative and outreach efforts to 
over three thousand middle school, high school, and college students, 
and Transportation partners.
    Donations of surplus computers from FRA Headquarters and Regional 
offices. In the regions, this has allowed inner city schools to 
establish computer labs.
    Participation in High School and College Career Fairs. Tours of 
Amtrak's Maintenance Facility.
    Mentoring and tutoring by regional personnel. These efforts will 
continue into fiscal year 1999.
Fiscal year 1999
    Partnering with Regional offices to enhance intermodal Garrett A. 
Morgan activities.
    Integration of Garrett A. Morgan, Trespasser Prevention, Buckle-Up 
America, and Rail Safety and Transportation-related career 
presentations.
    Development of outreach campaigns for grades K-12 in the areas of: 
Interactive Web Page, Administrator's Safety Ambassadors Pledge-
Certifications of Accomplishment, Local Partnerships with 
Transportation, Health, Education, Media, and Business Partners (Field 
trips, Guest Speakers, donated time and money).
                    policy studies and contributions
    Question. What are the most important policy studies and 
contributions made by the Office of Policy and Program Development in 
fiscal year 1997, thus far in fiscal year 1998, and what is planned for 
fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. The Office of Policy and Program Development has the lead 
role for the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Department, in 
several areas: rail structural and industry analysis (mergers); 
economic regulation; rail network geographic information systems (GIS); 
rail needs for national defense; Operation Respond; and railroad data 
development. In addition the Office of Policy and Program Development 
has played a significant role in development of the Department's 
proposal for reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act, and continues to develop tools to assist states in 
evaluating the costs and benefits of rail projects, under the current 
ISTEA.
    Structural Analysis.--The Office of Policy and Program Development 
has been the lead Department of Transportation (DOT) group for 
analyzing rail merger proposals for over 10 years. Staff analyzed and 
developed the DOT's position on the merger of the Union Pacific and the 
Southern Pacific railroads; during fiscal year 1997 and 1998, the 
Office is continuing to assess the competitive issues associated with 
the consolidation, as an active participant in the Surface 
Transportation Board's oversight proceedings. During fiscal year 1997 
and thus far in fiscal year 1998, they similarly led the DOT analysis 
of the proposed acquisition of Conrail by the Norfolk Southern and CSXT 
railroads. As a result of the service and safety problems that 
developed after the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger, the Office 
is initiating development of an ``early warning'' system designed to 
alert FRA and DOT to potential problems with the Conrail transaction, 
as well as with the rail system in general. This work will begin in 
fiscal year 1998 and continue in fiscal year 1999.
    In fiscal year 1997, the Office had the lead for the Department in 
assessing the impact of a potential strike on Amtrak; strike impact 
analyses produced by the Office are used by the National Mediation 
Board and the White House to determine the need for a Presidential 
Emergency Board, or for legislation to end a strike.
    Much of the data (traffic, financial, and general economic) that 
supports this and other policy analyses are acquired, compiled, and 
funded as explained below.
    Economic Regulation.--In addition to continuing work on the 
competitive aspects of the UP/SP merger in fiscal year 1998 and 1999, 
the Policy Office will have the lead in developing DOT's views on 
Surface Transportation Board reauthorization, potential legislative 
changes to the Staggers Rail Act, and any administrative changes 
proposed by the STB. This will include assessing the issues of 
competitive access, product and geographic competition and revenue 
adequacy.
    The Office is an active participant in the Department's ongoing 
analysis of the impacts of potential truck size and weight changes. In 
fiscal year 1997 and continuing in 1998, staff worked with FHWA to 
recalibrate the Department's traffic diversion model; additionally, 
Policy Office staff is assessing the effects of various truck size and 
weight scenarios on rail revenues and traffic levels, as well as on 
rates for shippers whose traffic would remain on the rail system. These 
analyses will be incorporated into the Department's report, due to be 
published in the Fall of 1998.
    Rail Network Geographic Information System (GIS).--The Office of 
Policy and Program Development created a rail network GIS, representing 
all 150,000 route miles of track in the United States railroad system. 
The GIS is extremely detailed, containing ownership, trackage rights, 
and traffic statistics for each line segment in the country. It is 
updated annually and has been widely distributed to other federal 
agencies, states, MPO's, local jurisdictions, and railroads. It has 
been coupled with a highway GIS from DOT's Federal Highway 
Administration and a waterway GIS from the United States Coast Guard to 
create the initial stages of an intermodal network GIS. During fiscal 
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 the FRA Rail Network GIS will be 
updated, enhanced, and distributed to the public. Also, hazardous 
materials movements (extracted from the Waybill Sample) will be 
simulated over the Rail Network GIS to be used as an aid by the Office 
of Safety in deploying its inspection fleet.
    ISTEA.--In fiscal year 1997 and continuing in 1998, the Office of 
Policy and Program Development continues to lead FRA's participation 
with the rest of the Department on reauthorization of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). FRA was successful in 
including flexibility for states and localities to fund some types of 
rail passenger and rail freight projects in the Administration's 
legislative proposal; the Senate legislation incorporates some aspects 
of the Administration's proposal. In fiscal year 1999, FRA anticipates 
working with other parts of the Department, and with states and MPO's, 
to implement the rail and intermodal aspects of the reauthorized 
legislation.
    Analytic Tools Development.--The Office of Policy and Program 
Development has funded the development of a computerized model 
(RailDec) to assess the public and private costs and benefits of rail 
and rail-related projects. It has been made available to and is widely 
used by states, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's), and 
regional jurisdictions to analyze the worth of such projects in their 
own areas. During fiscal year 1997 the model was modified to better 
include projects directly related to rail/highway crossings. Work in 
fiscal year 1998 includes further refinements, as well as additional 
workshops and other instructional sessions with states and MPO's. Once 
ISTEA legislation is reauthorized, the Office will assess the rail and 
intermodal aspects of the new program to determine what additional 
tools and training should be developed in fiscal year 1999.
    National Defense (STRACNET).--The Office of Policy and Program 
Development, in cooperation with the Military Traffic Management 
Command (MTMC) of the Defense Department, reevaluates on an annual 
basis the rail requirements for the defense of the United States based 
on changing rail traffic density and defense traffic pattern shifts. 
This effort defines the Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET), 
those rail lines identified as necessary to defense.
    Operation Respond.--The Office of Policy and Program Development 
administers the FRA's portion of the federal grant to Operation 
Respond. FRA's funding helped to develop a very successful pilot 
project in Houston, Texas that paved the way for better response to 
rail hazardous materials spills. Funding in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal 
year 1999 will expand these efforts to other localities in the United 
States and also broaden the railroad base to include short line 
carriers. Starting in fiscal year 1999 Operation Respond oversight will 
transfer from the Office of Policy and Program Development to the 
Office of Safety.
    Waybill Sample Creation.--The Office of Policy and Program 
Development jointly with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) funds 
the creation of the Rail Carload Waybill Sample data base on an annual 
basis. Funding is 50 percent FRA (Office of Policy and Program 
Development--item ``Contract Support,'' subitem ``Waybill Sample'') and 
50 percent STB. The Waybill Sample data base is the only comprehensive 
source of rail traffic data that includes details for both commodity 
and routing. As such it functions as the official traffic data source 
for proceedings before the STB, including mergers, acquisitions, and 
abandonments.
    Economic and Financial Data.--The Office of Policy and Program 
Development purchases and collects rail economic and financial data to 
support policy analysis of the rail industry. Economic data is 
purchased from Data Resources, Inc. (DRI) to track economic trends in 
the rail industry. Rail financial data is compiled into a financial 
data base to evaluate individual rail companies and the industry as a 
whole. These data are used extensively in rail structure analysis such 
as mergers, as well as in the rail chapter of the Department of 
Commerce's annual Industrial Outlook, written by Office of Policy and 
Program Development staff.
                           oa other services
    Question. Please delineate on a contract-by-contract basis how the 
object classification line item 25.2 ``other services'' was allocated 
in fiscal year 1997 ($1,576,000); and will be allocated in fiscal year 
1998 ($5,181,000); and what services are included in the fiscal year 
1999 request ($2,455,000)
    Answer. The information follows:

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                  --------------------------------------
             Category                               1998         1999
                                   1997 actual    estimate     estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contracts........................         $346   \1\ $3,886         $703
Common Services..................           34           61           53
Agreements.......................          177          164      \2\ 385
Information Technology...........          346          959        1,075
Other............................          673          111          239
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................        1,576    \1\ 5,181        2,455
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes carryover funds.
\2\ Includes $200K for the Electronic Grants Pilot Project.


             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                           safety performance
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated 
and the amount actually appropriated for the four programs in the 
Safety Performance Standards Budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 
1998.
    Answer. Below is a budget comparison table for fiscal years 1996, 
1997, and 1998.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1996      1996      1997      1997      1998      1998
                      Programs                         Request   Approp    Request   Approp    Request   Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Safety......................................       850       642       589       929       929       929
New Car Assess......................................     2,792     1,707     3,542     2,786     2,786     2,786
Fuel Economy........................................     2,285       118     1,560        60        60        60
Theft & Consumer....................................       110       106        50        50        50        50
Motor Vehicle Title Info............................   \1\ 890  ........  ........  ........  ........
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL.........................................     6,037     3,463     5,741     3,825     3,825     3,825
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds administered by Traffic Safety Programs (pilot demo).

    Question. Please prepare a table for each of the five components of 
the Safety Performance Standards Program, showing how all of the funds 
requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please 
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for 
comparable activities for fiscal year 1998.
    Answer. Below are the comparison tables for the Safety Performance 
Standards Program for fiscal year 1998 and 1999.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal    Fiscal
                                                        year      year
                                                        1998      1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETY STANDARDS SUPPORT:
    Quick Reaction Testing..........................       414       218
    Cost and Lead time Analysis.....................        75       150
    Consumer Information............................       100  ........
    Off-Set Frontal Testing.........................       340       340
                                                     -------------------
      TOTAL.........................................       929       708
                                                     ===================
CONSUMER INFORMATION:
    NCAP and other consumer information materials...       114       347
    ``Buying A Safer Car'' and ``Buying A Safer Car        103       150
     For Child Passengers'' brochures and marketing.
    New materials for other program areas such as     ........       150
     anti-lock brakes, rollover, theft prevention
     and the development of a summary
     crashworthiness measure for new vehicles.......
    Research on consumer needs for vehicle safety          105       100
     information....................................
    Develop improvements in current consumer                25        67
     information....................................
                                                     -------------------
      TOTAL.........................................   \1\ 347       814
                                                     ===================
NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM:
    Frontal NCAP....................................     1,777     2,551
    Side NCAP.......................................       762     1,701
    NCAP Promotional Program........................       247  ........
    NCAP 5th percent Female Dummy Testing...........  ........       604
    Crash Avoidance Demonstration Program...........  ........       200
                                                     -------------------
      TOTAL.........................................     2,786     5,056
                                                     ===================
FUEL ECONOMY PROGRAM: Fuel Economy Analysis.........        60        60
                                                     ===================
THEFT PROGRAM: Theft Analysis.......................        50        30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fiscal year 1998 request includes the $100,000 allocated under
  Vehicle Safety Standards and Consumer Support for consumer information
  and the $247,000 allocated under NCAP for NCAP promotional activities.

    Question. Please list the purpose, amount and recipients of your 
contracts over $50,000 issued during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 
1997.
    Answer. Below is a list of contracts over $50,000 issued during 
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1997.

        Description                                               Amount

Fiscal year 1997 contracts:
    Study the feasibility of possible upgrade to FMVSS No. 
      218, Motorcycle Helmets--University of Southern 
      California, Head Protection Research Laboratory.........   $50,000
    Conduct research on consumer knowledge of vehicle safety 
      and focus group sessions to determine consumer 
      perceptions and needs about vehicle safety--Global 
      Exchange, Inc...........................................    71,778
    9 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 97 NCAP--Karco 
      Engineering.............................................   198,893
    8 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--Calspan.....   144,840
    11 side impact tests for MY 97 NCAP--MGA Research Corpora- 

      tion....................................................   188,340
    16 side impact tests for MY 97 NCAP--MGA Research Corpora- 

      tion....................................................   262,288
    6 side impact tests for MY 98 NCAP--MGA Research 
      Corporation.............................................   112,152
    8 offset frontal tests--Karco.............................   160,456
    Quality assurance for NCAP data--Conrad Technologies......    97,000
    Conduct a series of focus groups on air-bag labels--Global 
      Exchange, Inc...........................................    53,622
    Cost, weight, and lead time analysis of advanced air bag 
      systems--Ludtke and Associates..........................    65,585
    Computer and other support for rulemaking activities--Dell 
      Computer, Information Management Consultants, Treadway 
      Corporation.............................................   226,971
Fiscal year 1998 contracts awarded to date:
    14 side impact tests for MY 98 NCAP--MGA Research 
      Corporation.............................................   255,068
    6 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--MGA Research 
      Corporation.............................................   163,206
    16 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--Calspan....   273,105
    11 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--Karco 
      Engineer- 
      ing.....................................................   214,896
    6 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--
      Transportation Research Center..........................   154,878
    Computer support for rulemaking activities--Information 
      Management Consultants..................................    53,410

    Question. What is the number and nature of the key rulemaking 
activities that are now before NHTSA?
    Answer. Of the current 128 pending rulemaking activities, 
approximately 30 are considered key rulemakings. The majority of these 
activities address the issues of air bag aggressiveness, particularly 
as they relate to the safety of children. A significant number also 
relate to the establishment of new and varying sizes of dummies to be 
used for compliance testing of new air bags. Other major activities 
include labeling requirements to improve consumer information; warning 
labels for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles with air 
bags; uniform child restraint attachment systems, new technologies for 
interior impact protection; exemptions for businesses that modify 
vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities from the ``make-
inoperative'' prohibitions; and the establishment of a regulatory 
negotiation for certification of multi-stage vehicles.
    Question. For the record, please prepare a list of all final 
rulemakings that have been issued since you submitted a similar list 
last year.
    Answer. Below is a list of final rulemakings that have been issued 
from June 1997 through April 1998.
1997
            49 CFR--Description
    571.101.--In response to the President's Regulatory Reinventing 
Initiative, the agency removed two tables and certain regulatory text, 
all of which applied to motor vehicles manufactured before 9/1/89.
    571.105; 571.135.--Accommodated the unique characteristic of brake 
systems on electric vehicles.
    571.105; 571.135.--Extended requirements to trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms or less in an effort to achieve international 
harmonization.
    571.208.--Extended the time period during which vehicle 
manufacturers are permitted to offer manual on-off switches for the 
passenger-side air bag for vehicles without rear seats or with rear 
seats that are too small to accommodate rear facing infant seats.
    571.208; 571.201.--Interim final rule allowing unbelted sled test 
protocol as a temporary alternative to the full scale unbelted barrier 
crash test.
    571.213.--Interim final rule allowing the phrase ``unless air bag 
is off'' to be added to the warning label for child seats which can be 
used in a rear-facing position (``rear-facing child seats'').
    572.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, the agency 
published a technical amendment correcting the specifications of the 
characteristics of a test dummy representing a six-year-old child.
    583.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, the agency 
extended for two years a limited temporary provision in its content 
calculation procedures to provide vehicle manufacturers added 
flexibility in making content determinations where outside suppliers 
have not responded to requests for content information.
1998
            49 CFR--Description
    571.105.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, allows 
hydraulically-braked vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
greater than 10,000 pounds, but less than 19,501 pounds, to be equipped 
with a single wheel speed sensor in the drive line to control wheel 
slip at the drive axle and allows rear tag axles to lock up. In 
addition, this allows motor homes with a GVWR of 22,500 pounds or less 
to use a single rear drive axle wheel speed sensor if they are 
manufactured before March 1, 2001, after which new motor homes must 
meet the same antilock braking system (ABS) requirements as other 
hydraulically-braked trucks and buses.
    571.108.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, allows white 
reflex reflectors designed to be mounted horizontally in trailer and 
truck tractor conspicuity treatments to be mounted vertically in upper 
rear corner locations if they comply with appropriate photometric 
requirements for off-axis light entrance angles.
    571.121.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, allows an 
alternate placement of the external antilock braking system (ABS) 
malfunction indicator lamp on trailers that have limited or non-
existent structures to which the lamp and associated wiring can be 
attached.
    571.208.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, amended the 
requirements for seat belts at forward-facing rear outboard seating 
positions of police cars and other law enforcement vehicles to 
facilitate the transporting of prisoners.
    571.208.--Corrects the language of the regulatory text to clarify 
the requirement of a key specifically matched to the on-off switch and 
how the readiness indicator should function when one or both air bags 
have been deactivated by means of the on-off switch and corrected a 
clerical error.
    571.223; 571.224.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, 
clarified the 100 mm (4 inch) height requirement for the horizontal 
member of an underride guard, explicitly exclude from having to meet 
the energy absorption requirements all cargo tank motor vehicles 
manufactured with rear end protection complying with the high strength 
requirements of 49 CFR part 178 (to protect hazardous material) that 
occupies the area specified for the underride guard, and increases the 
acceptable range of force application rates during testing. This 
excludes pulpwood trailers from the application of the vehicle 
standard.
    572.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, made minor 
modifications in the dummy's femurs and ankles to improve biofidelity.
    533.--Established the average fuel economy standard for light 
trucks manufactured in model year (MY) 2000 at 20.7 mpg.
    Question. How much do you plan to spend or did you spend on all 
consumer-related information activities in fiscal year 1997 and in 
fiscal year 1998 relevant to the Safety Performance Program?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997 we spent $347,000 for consumer-related 
information activities. In fiscal year 1998 we plan to spend $347,000 
for consumer-related information activities. These activities include 
research, marketing, materials development and dissemination, and 
outreach for the purpose of developing and delivering motor vehicle 
safety information to consumers.
    Question. Please break down how the $814,000 requested in fiscal 
year 1999 will be allocated for consumer-related information programs. 
What is the empirical basis for this request?
    Answer. The requested $814,000 will be allocated as follows:
  --$347,000 will be spent to consolidate the vehicle consumer 
        information program by including the amount of funds from the 
        NCAP and Vehicle Safety and Consumer Standards budgets that 
        were allocated to support consumer information activities in 
        fiscal year 1998. These funds will continue present NCAP and 
        other consumer information materials development and 
        dissemination.
  --$150,000 will be used to increase the distribution, marketing, and 
        outreach for the ``Buying A Safer Car'' and ``Buying A Safer 
        Car For Child Passengers'' brochures and other current consumer 
        information materials that are produced. The program will 
        emphasize outreach to new partners and constituents such as 
        National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), child safety 
        advocates, the public health community, and consumer groups. It 
        will take advantage of new technologies and communications 
        strategies such as the Internet to increase the public's 
        awareness and use of motor vehicle safety information.
  --$150,000 will be spent for the agency to work with its partners to 
        pursue the development of a summary crashworthiness measure for 
        new vehicles. New materials for other program areas such as 
        anti-lock brakes, rollover, theft prevention and previously 
        owned vehicles will also be developed and disseminated to 
        consumers.
  --$100,000 will be spent for research to determine what vehicle 
        safety information is most helpful to consumers, how it can be 
        presented, and the most effective means of disseminating it. 
        This research will provide the basis for the development of 
        summary ratings, and other new campaigns and materials for 
        issues such as rollover, antilock brakes, safety cards, and 
        previously owned vehicles.
  --$67,000 will be spent to examine the information currently provided 
        by the agency to determine how its presentation and usefulness 
        can be improved. This includes initiatives to improve warning 
        labels, public service announcements and brochures.
    The empirical basis for this request is previous experience with 
the NCAP program and other highway safety information programs, and an 
assessment of the level of effort required to address the 
recommendations contained in the National Academy of Science's (NAS) 
study ``Shopping for Safety.'' The NAS study recommends a level of 
$300,000 for research, alone. At the current budget levels, we are only 
able to print 200,000 to 250,000 ``Buying A Safer Car'' brochures, and 
100,000 to 150,000 ``Buying A Safer Car For Child Passengers'' 
brochures. We do not have in the present budget the ability to plan, 
produce and market other materials on proper usage and other required 
issues, of critical interest to consumers.
    Question. Why does it take money to develop strategies for engaging 
the participation of key public and private sector organizations in the 
development of consumer information related to safety performance 
standards?
    Answer. Establishing partnerships is key to NHTSA's efforts to 
improve the development and delivery of motor vehicle safety consumer 
information. Partners contribute technical expertise, distribution 
channels, and funding or ``in-kind'' support. Unfortunately, because of 
competing interests and/or a lack of familiarity with the issue, 
prospective partners often do not readily agree to engage in 
partnerships. Therefore, developing strategies for engaging the 
participation of key public and private sector organizations in the 
development and dissemination of motor vehicle safety consumer 
information is necessarily a complicated and resource intensive 
activity. By contracting with expert marketing and communications firms 
who are knowledgeable and experienced in targeting and recruiting 
partners (including the development of materials that market the 
proposed partnership), NHTSA is much more likely to be successful in 
its effort to establish multiple partnerships. These partnerships will 
help improve the quality of the consumer information materials that are 
developed and will significantly expand their distribution to the 
public.
             vehicle safety and consumer standards program
    Question. What is the status of your efforts to develop a federal 
motor vehicle safety standard for frontal offset crash testing?
    Answer. Congress provided $340,000 in fiscal year 1997 and again in 
fiscal year 1998 to conduct tests and studies. To date, the testing and 
studies have been directed at determining the potential for harmonizing 
any offset requirements with those of Europe and to evaluate the 
potential use of the 5th percentile female dummy in crash test 
standards. After the completion of the second phase of testing of 8 
tests on 3 additional vehicles with depowered air bags, the agency 
plans to initiate rulemaking.
    NHTSA is following the plan in a June 1997 Offset Frontal report to 
Congress. This report is in docket NHTSA-1998-3332 and is also 
available on the NHTSA Website. NHTSA has completed the first eight 
tests in the frontal offset testing program, as proposed in the report 
to Congress. These tests include: 2 offset tests with 50th percentile 
male dummies; 3 offset tests with 5th percentile female dummies; and 
3--FMVSS 208-type barrier tests with 5th percentile unrestrained female 
dummies. NHTSA will provide a status report to Congress on the results 
of these tests later this spring. These test reports also are available 
in docket NHTSA-1998-3332.
    Question. What additional activities are planned during fiscal year 
1998 to investigate the potential of establishing an offset frontal 
standard? How much is planned to be allocated towards that objective?
    Answer. NHTSA will continue to evaluate the potential for 
harmonizing any offset requirements with those of Europe and to 
evaluate the potential use of the 5th percentile female dummy in crash 
test standards with additional vehicles from the overall fleet that 
have the new depowered air bags. NHTSA plans to conduct 8 tests with 3 
depowered air bag vehicles in summer of 1998, using $340,000 in fiscal 
year 1998 funds. NHTSA plans to complete the analysis of the data from 
the testing conducted with fiscal year 1997 funding. NHTSA plans to 
prepare a report to Congress on the results of this initial testing by 
June 1998.
    Question. What additional activities are planned during fiscal year 
1999 to investigate the potential of establishing an offset frontal 
standard? How much is planned to be allocated towards that objective?
    Answer. NHTSA plans to get the rulemaking process underway in 
fiscal year 1999; NHTSA will be challenged by commenters and questioned 
on technical questions. For example, the agency may be challenged that 
not enough offset testing was completed to project the benefit of 
extending offset testing to the fleet of vehicles sold in the U.S. The 
offset testing in fiscal year 1999 will address the technical issues 
that will arise.
                       new car assessment program
    Question. Are you planning to change the way that crashworthiness 
information is provided to consumers? If so, how? How will it improve 
matters?
    Answer. Yes, the agency intends to change and improve the way that 
crashworthiness information is provided to consumers. Crashworthiness 
information is presently disseminated through the NHTSA Hotline, the 
NHTSA web page, and in the ``Buying A Safer Car'' brochure, which is 
also distributed by AAA. As recommended by the NAS study ``Shopping For 
Safety'', the Agency will implement a research based multi-channeled 
approach to providing crashworthiness information to consumers. 
Enhanced consumer information campaigns will be developed for the NCAP 
program and for its companion piece, the ``Buying A Safer Car For Child 
Passengers'' brochure. Marketing plans will be developed for NCAP and 
other programs and products that include consumer research, marketing 
strategies, materials development and dissemination, media outreach, 
establishment of partnerships, and evaluation. Products will include a 
video news release, radio public service announcements, media kits, and 
other executions as appropriate. NHTSA will also develop and implement 
a marketing plan to make previous years NCAP information available to 
prospective purchasers of previously owned vehicles. The agency will 
emphasize outreach to new partners and constituents such as NADA, child 
safety advocates, the public health community, and consumer groups. The 
agency will also take full advantage of new technologies such as the 
Internet. The result will be improved distribution and promotion of 
NCAP information and material and a wider and more thorough consumer 
exposure and awareness of NCAP ratings and of the agency as a credible 
source of motor vehicle safety information.
    Question. The fiscal year 1998 budget earmarked $247,000 for 
promoting and distributing safety information to consumers regarding 
NCAP. Did you subtract $247,000 out of the fiscal year 1998 base 
request for NCAP or is that amount double funded under the new consumer 
information initiative?
    Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for NCAP of $5,056 
thousand does not include an amount for promoting and distributing 
safety information to consumers regarding NCAP. Those activities are 
included only in the $814 thousand request for the new consumer 
information initiative. The increased budget request for NCAP will 
increase the number of tests which can be conducted and investigate the 
feasibility of extending testing to adults of small stature. The 
increased testing would benefit consumers by providing them with safety 
information on a greater proportion of the fleet. Testing with a dummy 
of a small stature will benefits consumers by providing them with 
safety information on a greater proportion of the population.
    Question. In extensive detail, please break down by each major 
activity how you would spend the $5.06 million requested for NCAP. 
Please compare that breakdown to last year's spending allocation. 
Please delineate specific projects, activities, and associated amounts.
    Answer. The following two tables provide a comparison of NCAP 
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 spending and break down for last 
year's spending.

Table 1

        PROJECT/DESCRIPTION                                BUDGET AMOUNT

Frontal & Side Impact NCAP Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Plans:
    Vehicle Purchase (100)....................................$1,850,000
    Vehicle Testing (100)..................................... 2,000,000
    Dummy Calibration & Refurbishing..........................    70,000
    Quality Assurance of NCAP Data............................   227,000
    Video Production..........................................    25,000
    Administrative Costs......................................\1\ 80,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      TOTAL................................................... 4,252,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Demonstration of 5th percent Female Dummy Full Frontal Impact 
    NCAP Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Plans:
    Vehicle Purchase (14).....................................   259,000
    Vehicle Testing (14)......................................   280,000
    Dummy Calibration & Refurbishing..........................    20,000
    Quality Assurance of NCAP Data............................    40,000
    Administrative Costs......................................     5,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   604,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Crash Avoidance Demonstration Program: Braking and Headlight 
    evaluation................................................   200,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total NCAP Contract Funds............................... 5,056,000

\1\ Administrative costs include computer support, hot copy, printing, 
and distribution costs.

    In fiscal year 1998, NCAP tested a total of 70 vehicles. Fifty 
vehicles were tested and rated for the frontal protection and 20 for 
side protection. In fiscal year 1999, NCAP plans to test 100 vehicles. 
Sixty vehicles will be crashed in the frontal direction and forty in 
the side direction. The results from the 60 frontal tests will provide 
consumers with relative frontal crashworthiness information on 
approximately 85 percent of the new vehicles. In 1999, side impact 
testing will be expanded to include light trucks, vans, and sport 
utility vehicles. The results from the 40 side tests will provide 
information on approximately 80 percent of the new vehicles.
    Fiscal year 1999 NCAP funds of $604,000 are requested to evaluate 
the feasibility of testing with a smaller adult female dummy. Without a 
funding increase, the NCAP will be testing only with an average size 
adult male dummy for the future. This will not allow NHTSA to 
adequately address our critical concerns about air bag safety and other 
issues. For model year 1999, the results of the testing with a dummy, 
of small stature, will not be reported to consumers as a safety rating. 
The purpose of the feasibility testing will be to (1) work out precise 
laboratory procedures, (2) confirm the durability of the small adult 
female dummy at the NCAP speed, and (3) assess the data recorded in the 
crash tests.
    NHTSA is seeking $200,000 for NCAP exploratory activities. NHTSA 
wants to explore whether the agency can provide the American public 
with meaningful safety information about the crash avoidance 
capabilities of a vehicle, along with the crash test results. This will 
give the public a more complete measure of vehicle safety for 
relatively little additional funding, since crash avoidance testing can 
be conducted before the vehicles are crash tested. The agency will use 
these funds to explore whether information on braking and head lighting 
performance can be provided with the crash test results in NCAP.

Table 2

        PROJECT/DESCRIPTION                                BUDGET AMOUNT

Impact Testing NCAP Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Plans:
    Vehicle Purchase (70).....................................$1,093,000
    Vehicle Testing (70)...................................... 1,161,000
    Dummy Calibration & Refurbishing..........................    70,000
    Quality Assurance of NCAP Data............................   110,000
    Video Production..........................................    25,000
    Administrative Costs......................................\1\ 80,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      TOTAL................................................... 2,539,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
NCAP Promotional Program:
    Promotional Material (Brochures, Radio & Print Spots & 
      Internet Dissemination).................................   150,000
    Reproduce & Disseminate Consumer Material.................    97,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   247,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Fiscal Year 1998 NCAP Costs....................... 2,786,000

\1\ Administrative costs include computer support, hot copy, printing, 
and distribution costs.

    Question. Please provide a breakdown of how the funds appropriated 
for fiscal year 1998 were used to expand NCAP. How many tests have been 
conducted, and what were the results?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the agency tested 28 passenger cars, 
10 sport utility vehicles, 4 vans, and 8 pickups (total of 50 vehicles) 
in the frontal NCAP. These tests provide frontal safety information on 
70 percent of the model year 1998 vehicles sold in the U.S. In fiscal 
year 1998, the side impact NCAP has tested 20 passenger cars. These 
test results, combined with carry-over results from fiscal year 1997, 
will provide side impact information to consumers on 72 percent of the 
passenger cars sold in the US. The funds for fiscal year 1998 NCAP were 
spent as follows:

        PROJECT/DESCRIPTION                                BUDGET AMOUNT

Impact Testing NCAP Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Plans:
    Vehicle Purchase (70).....................................$1,093,000
    Vehicle Testing (70)...................................... 1,161,000
    Dummy Calibration & Refurbishing..........................    70,000
    Quality Assurance of NCAP Data............................   110,000
    Video Production..........................................    25,000
    Administrative Costs......................................\1\ 80,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      TOTAL................................................... 2,539,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
NCAP Promotional Fiscal Year 1998 Program:
    Promotional Material (Brochures, Radio & Print Spots & 
      Internet Dissemination).................................   150,000
    Reproduce & Disseminate Consumer Material.................    97,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   247,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total fiscal year 1998 NCAP Costs....................... 2,786,000

\1\ Administrative costs include computer support, hot copy, printing, 
and distribution costs.

                                       RESULTS: 1998 FRONTAL NCAP VEHICLES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 STAR RATINGS
# OF             MANUFACTURER                                   MODEL                       --------------------
CARS                                                                                          DRIVER   PASSENGER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1 CHRYSLER                          CARAVAN...........................................         3          3
   2                                   DAKOTA............................................         4          4
   3                                   DURANGO...........................................         2          3
   4                                   GRAND CARAVAN.....................................         3          3
   5                                   GRAND CHEROKEE....................................         3          3
   6                                   NEON..............................................         3          4
   7                                   RAM...............................................         4          4
   8                                   STRATUS...........................................         3          4
   9 FORD                              CONTOUR...........................................         5          4
  10                                   CROWN VICTORIA....................................         5          5
  11                                   ESCORT............................................         3          3
  12                                   EXPEDITION........................................         4          4
  13                                   EXPLORER..........................................         4          4
  14                                   F-150.............................................         5          4
  15                                   MUSTANG...........................................         5          4
  16                                   RANGER............................................         4          4
  17                                   TAURUS............................................         4          4
  18                                   WINDSTAR..........................................         5          5
  19 GM                                BLAZER............................................         4          4
  20                                   C/K...............................................         4          3
  21                                   CAMARO............................................         4          5
  22                                   CAVALIER..........................................         3          4
  23                                   CAVALIER..........................................         4          4
  24                                   CENTURY...........................................         3          1
  25                                   INTRIGUE..........................................         4          3
  26                                   LUMINA............................................         4          5
  27                                   MALIBU............................................         4          4
  28                                   S-10..............................................         4          4
  29                                   SL................................................         5          4
  30                                   SUBURBAN..........................................         4          4
  31                                   VENTURE...........................................         4          3
  32 HONDA                             ACCORD............................................         4          4
  33                                   ACCORD............................................         4          4
  34                                   CIVIC.............................................         4          4
  35                                   CR-V..............................................         4          5
  36 ISUZU                             RODEO.............................................         3          4
  37 NISSAN                            ALTIMA............................................         4          4
  38                                   FRONTIER..........................................         3          4
  39                                   MAXIMA............................................         4          4
  40                                   SENTRA............................................         3          4
  41 SUBARU                            LEGACY............................................         4          4
  42 TOYOTA                            4-RUNNER..........................................         3          3
  43                                   AVALON............................................         4          5
  44                                   CAMRY.............................................         4          5
  45                                   COROLLA...........................................         4          4
  46                                   ES300.............................................         4          4
  47                                   RAV-4.............................................         4          4
  48                                   SIENNA............................................         5          5
  49                                   TACOMA............................................         4          3
  50 VOLVO                             S70...............................................         5          5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  RESULTS: 1998 SIDE IMPACT NCAP PASSENGER CARS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 STAR RATINGS
# OF             MANUFACTURER                                   MODEL                       --------------------
CARS                                                                                          DRIVER   PASSENGER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1 CHRYSLER                          NEON..............................................         2          3
   2 FORD                              ESCORT ZX2........................................         1          4
   3                                   MUSTANG...........................................         3          3
   4 GM                                BONNEVILLE........................................         3          2
   5                                   CAVALIER..........................................         1          3
   6                                   CENTURY...........................................         3          3
   7                                   INTRIGUE..........................................         3          1
   8                                   LeSABRE...........................................         3          3
   9 HONDA                             ACCORD............................................         4          4
  10                                   CIVIC.............................................         2          3
  11 HYUNDAI                           ELANTRA...........................................         3          1
  12 MAZDA                             626...............................................         3          3
  13 MERCEDES                          C-230.............................................         3          4
  14 MITSUBISHI                        ECLIPSE...........................................         1         ND
  15 NISSAN                            ALTIMA............................................         3          3
  16                                   SENTRA............................................         3          3
  17 TOYOTA                            AVALON............................................         5          4
  18                                   COROLLA...........................................         3          3
  19 VOLKSWAGEN                        JETTA.............................................         3          2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Note: Results are not yet available for the 20th vehicle (Lexus ES300).

    Question. How will NHTSA utilize the fiscal year 1999 requested 
funding to provide improved information regarding full frontal and side 
crashes to consumers?
    Answer. NHTSA's requested funding will enable the agency to regain 
some of the fleet coverage that had been lost due to depowering and 
increased costs. Approximately 100 vehicle crash tests will be 
conducted in frontal and side NCAP ($4,252 thousand). This will allow 
the consumer to have frontal safety information on 85 percent of cars 
and light trucks sold in the U.S. This is roughly the percentage of 
vehicles covered before the depowering of the frontal air bags in 1998. 
Without the increase, the percentage will remain at 70 percent.
    Expansion of the side NCAP to LTV's (of the 40 side impact tests, 
20-25 would be LTV's) will allow much broader coverage of the total 
fleet. This will provide the consumer with side impact safety 
information on approximately 80 percent of the cars and light trucks 
sold in the U.S. Without the increase, only 60 percent of the fleet 
will be covered.
    Question. Please outline the amounts allocated and activities NHTSA 
conducted to promote NCAP during fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, 
and planned for fiscal year 1999. How successful have those activities 
been?
    Answer. For both fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, $247,000 
was allocated to promote NCAP. These activities included:
  --Produced a 60-second PSA for movie theaters and distributed it to 
        56 theaters nationwide. (1997 only)
  --Produced a series of camera-ready, pre-packaged print articles for 
        each release of crash test results for MY 1997 vehicles, and 
        distributed them electronically to more than 10,000 weekly and 
        daily newspapers and wire services.
  --Produced a VNR on the NCAP program which was shown on all three 
        major network morning shows and distributed by satellite to all 
        TV markets. A total of 77 network affiliate stations and 
        programs played the VNR, and it aired in a total of 18 million 
        households.
  --Performed consumer research by completing a Literature Review and 
        conducted focus groups on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and 
        behaviors concerning motor vehicle safety.
  --Produced and distributed over 400,000 copies of the Buying a Safer 
        Car brochure, which was updated for MY 1997 vehicles to add 
        side crash test information.
  --Used the NCAP exhibit to promote the program at several consumer 
        information events in the fall of 1997.
  --Maintain updated NCAP information on the Internet. NCAP is 
        receiving about 4,500 inquiries and visitors per week on the 
        NHTSA web site. This has quadrupled over the past year.
    While these activities were successful, much more needs to be done. 
A recent NHTSA customer survey found that 40 percent of the respondents 
had never seen or heard of the crash test ratings.
    For fiscal year 1999, the following activities are planned.
  --$347,000 will be spent to consolidate the vehicle consumer 
        information program by including the amount of funds from the 
        NCAP and Vehicle Safety and Consumer Standards budgets that 
        were allocated to support consumer information activities in 
        fiscal year 1998.
  --$150,000 will be used to increase the distribution, marketing, and 
        outreach for the ``Buying A Safer Car'' and ``Buying A Safer 
        Car For Child Passengers'' brochures and other current consumer 
        information materials that are produced. The program will 
        emphasize outreach to new partners and constituents such as 
        NADA, child safety advocates, the public health community, and 
        consumer groups. It will take advantage of new technologies and 
        communications strategies to increase the public's awareness 
        and use of motor vehicle safety information.
  --$150,000 will be spent for the agency to work with its partners to 
        pursue the development of a summary crashworthiness measure for 
        new vehicles. New materials for other program areas such as 
        anti-lock brakes, rollover, theft prevention, and previously 
        owned vehicles will also be developed and disseminated to 
        consumers.
  --$100,000 will be spent for research to determine what vehicle 
        safety information is most helpful to consumers, how it can be 
        presented, and the most effective means of disseminating it. 
        This research will provide the basis for the development of 
        summary ratings and other new campaigns and materials for 
        issues such as rollover, antilock brakes, safety cards, and 
        previously owned vehicles.
  --$67,000 will be spent to examine the information currently provided 
        by the agency to determine how its presentation and usefulness 
        can be improved. This includes initiatives to improve warning 
        labels, public service announcements, and brochures.
    Question. Please compare the amount appropriated to the amount 
spent on NCAP for each of the last three fiscal years.
    Answer. The appropriated funds for NCAP in fiscal year 1996, fiscal 
year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 were $1,707,000, $2,792,000, and 
$2,786,000 respectively. The amounts spent on NCAP in fiscal year 1996, 
fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 were the same as the amounts 
appropriated for those years.
    Question. Since last year what improvements have you made in 
NHTSA's efforts to promote international harmonization? How much do you 
plan on spending in that area during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 
1999?
    Answer. To improve efforts in the area of international 
harmonization the agency has drawn as needed on personnel resources 
from other activities of the agency such as counsel, performance 
standards, safety assurance and research and development.
    These resources were used in the successful negotiation of a draft 
global agreement on the development of harmonized technical regulations 
among the European Community, Japan and the United States. The 
availability of adequate travel funding enabled the holding of five 
intensive negotiation sessions with appropriate United States 
representation at each session. The satisfactory funding of the travel 
associated with international harmonization was also an important 
factor in enabling the agency's continued substantive participation in 
the activities of the Automotive Standards Council of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Transportation Working 
Group of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Further, the 
personnel resources made available as needed, has made it possible to 
complete a process for assessment of the functional equivalence of 
foreign regulations as compared to United States regulations and to 
begin substantive participation in the various activities of the 
International harmonized Research Agenda.
    The globalization of the automobile industry and the challenges and 
opportunities this presents for the agency in promoting motor vehicle 
safety through the harmonization of regulations worldwide has begun to 
be felt through the increasing requests for information and counsel 
from other agencies of the government that have functions where 
standards and regulatory initiatives play an important role.
    As of this writing the agency plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal 
year 1999 are to spend about the same resources for international 
harmonization activities. To the extent that the agency's participation 
in the meetings of the Working Party on the Construction of Vehicles 
(WP29) of the Economic Commission for Europe is funded and accredited 
by the Department of State, no increase in travel funding is 
anticipated. The value of the latter funding is approximately half the 
agency's travel budget for international harmonization activities.
    Question. What efforts are underway or planned to improve the way 
NCAP information is conveyed to customers?
    Answer. NHTSA will improve the way NCAP information is conveyed 
through implementing programs and approaches designed to respond to 
consumer research findings. Consumers want more safety information than 
they presently have; they want the quality and understandability of the 
information to be better; they want information that is free from bias; 
and they want the information to be easily accessible from a variety of 
sources. NHTSA will develop marketing strategies to address these needs 
and will explore additional methods of presenting and disseminating 
information, including developing of a summary measure to provide more 
comprehensive safety information. NHTSA will pursue the development of 
a summary rating combining front and side impact crash scores, as well 
as other possible elements, through the establishment of a working 
group of industry and other partners. The group will examine the 
feasibility and potential methodologies for developing a summary 
measure. When completed, the summary rating will provide consumers with 
another piece of useful information to be used when purchasing a 
vehicle.
                          fuel economy program
    Question. Please provide a detailed explanation of the efforts 
underway to improve the plants and lines database.
    Answer. Over the past year, the plants and lines database has been 
enhanced to provide, not only current data on auto manufacturer product 
plans and production facilities, but also the storage and retrieval of 
historic data. As in the past, all data and information related to 
future product plans and facility utilization are continually updated 
with more recent information. Enhancements and upgrades to the database 
format and mapping software have been completed to improve the ease of 
use, retrieval, and presentation of data and information by the end 
user. The database has been expanded to provide better coverage of 
international product planning and facility utilization. The staff has 
also begun to compile information on alternative fueled vehicles and 
their producers.
    Question. What data have been collected, and what are the results 
of the data analysis?
    Answer. The plants and lines project has collected data on the 
current and future product plans of all auto manufacturers serving the 
North American market. It also includes data on assembly plants and 
plants where major powertrain products are assembled or manufactured, 
including production rates and future product plans for these 
facilities. Financial data on the three major domestic manufacturers is 
included.
    Plants and lines is most often used to respond to ad hoc inquiries 
concerning developments in the auto industry, future product plans, and 
geographical information concerning companies and their facilities. It 
was used to support the preparation of the report to Congress on the 
use and utility of light trucks and, more recently, a report by the 
Volpe Center for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles 
(PNGV) study.
                            theft prevention
    Question. Please describe the improvements made in your theft 
prevention program. Were those improvements effective? Please provide 
quantitative data to support your answer.
    Answer. The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 33104(b)(4) to 
periodically obtain, from the most reliable source, accurate and timely 
theft data and publish that data for review and comment. NHTSA obtains 
its data from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NCIC is a governmental system that 
receives vehicle theft information from nearly 23,000 criminal justice 
agencies and law enforcement authorities throughout the United States. 
This data permits NHTSA to issue rules requiring the designation of 
likely high-theft vehicles and to calculate annual theft rates of 
various motor vehicles to determine the risk of their theft.
    To fulfill this statutory mandate, NHTSA has published theft data 
annually since 1983/84. In past years, the agency's theft data was 
processed by private contractors at a substantial cost to the 
government. Beginning with receipt of model year (MY) 1995 information 
from NCIC, theft data have been processed by an in-house team of 
specialists. In-house processing of the theft data has resulted in a 
substantial cost savings to the agency and has improved its ability to 
more efficiently compile, analyze, and publish the theft data for 
public review.

Prior to MY 1995 (Contractor costs)...........................   $54,000
MY 1995 (In-house processing).................................    24,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Agency Savings..........................................    30,000
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Prior to MY 1995 (Contractor costs)...........................    54,000
MY 1996 (In-house processing).................................     4,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Agency Savings..........................................    50,000

    The team responsible for implementing of this in-house procedure 
will continue to develop ways to improve the efficiency of processing 
the data. The most recent calendar year for which data are available 
was published on February 9, 1998 (See 63 FR 6603). This data reports 
preliminary theft data for MY 1996 passenger motor vehicles stolen in 
calendar year (CY) 1996.
    Additionally, on June 26, 1997, the agency published a notice 
announcing publication of its Preliminary Report to Congress on the 
Auto Theft and Recovery Effects of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 and 
the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 for review and 
comment (See 62 FR 34494). This report evaluated the effectiveness of 
the current federal parts-marking program, its statutory regulations, 
and recommendations for program improvement.
    NHTSA's preliminary report showed that parts marking and other 
provisions of the 1984 and 1992 Acts have given the law enforcement 
community tools they can use to deter thefts, trace stolen vehicles and 
parts, and apprehend and convict thieves. Theft rates leveled off after 
1989 through 1990 and then began to drop. The average consumer cost of 
parts marking in 1995 models was approximately $5 per vehicle. At that 
cost, just a 2 percent reduction in the theft rate would create 
consumer benefits exceeding the cost of parts marking.
    The results of NHTSA's Preliminary Report to Congress suggested 
that parts-marking has had benefits. There is some indication that the 
effect of parts marking might have been greater than the 2 percent 
needed for cost-effectiveness, at least at certain times. The program 
has, on the whole, had an impact as evidenced by the leveling off and 
reduction of theft rates after 1990. A final decision on whether to 
continue or expand the program will not be made until the Department of 
Justice has completed its extensive review of other information that 
the Attorney General may develop and include in the public record.
    Additionally, funding will be provided for the development of 
consumer information and materials to increase public awareness of 
motor vehicle theft deterrence and prevention methods aimed at the 
further reduction of motor vehicle theft.
                            safety assurance
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated 
and the amount actually appropriated for the four components in the 
Safety Assurance Program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
    Answer. The information follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year--
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Program                   1996         1996         1997         1997         1998         1998
                                      Request      Approp.      Request      Approp.      Request      Approp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Safety Compliance.........   $5,353,000   $4,775,000   $6,033,000   $5,837,000   $5,712,000   $5,712,000
Auto Safety Hotline...............    1,667,000      657,000    1,787,000   1,483, 000    1,458,000    1,222,000
Defects Investigation.............    2,460,000    2,419,000    2,481,000    2,478,000    2,478,000    2,478,000
Odometer Fraud....................      100,000       60,000      100,000       60,000      210,000      135,000
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................    9,580,000    7,911,000   10,401,000    9,858,000    9,858,000    9,574,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table for each of the four programs in 
the Safety Assurance Program, showing how all of the funds requested 
for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please include in 
that table a comparison with the amount provided for each of those 
activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the 
need for the requested increases.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            FISCAL YEAR     FISCAL YEAR
                ACTIVITY                       1998            1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE:
    Vehicle Compliance Testing..........      $3,500,000      $3,463,000
    Equipment Compliance Testing........       2,212,000       2,212,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       5,712,000       5,675,000
                                         ===============================
DEFECTS INVESTIGATION:
    Defect Identification and Evaluation       1,296,000       2,056,000
    Testing and Surveys.................         832,000       1,015,000
    Recall Monitoring and Performance...         350,000         350,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       2,478,000       3,421,000
                                         ===============================
AUTO SAFETY HOTLINE:
    Defect Reporting....................         177,000         219,000
    Contract Personnel..................         640,000         666,000
    Phone...............................         250,000         260,000
    Call handling Support...............          80,000         125,000
    Printing............................          75,000         125,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       1,222,000       1,395,000
                                         ===============================
ODOMETER FRAUD INVESTIGATION:
    Cooperative Agreements for 3 States          135,000  ..............
     to provide law enforcement agent...
    Cooperative agreements with 2 States  ..............          60,000
     for State enforcement sup-  port...
    Cooperative agreements for 2 State    ..............          90,000
     enforcement officers for temporary
     assignment to NHTSA................
                                         -------------------------------
        Total...........................         135,000         150,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justification for Increases:
            Auto Safety Hotline
    In fiscal year 1999, the agency plans to expand its defect 
reporting outreach program to increase public awareness of the Hotline 
and NHTSA's Internet web site and to encourage motorists to report 
potential safety-related defects. Additionally, small increases are 
necessary to accommodate cost-of-living increases for contract 
personnel, to fund anticipated increases in telephone costs, to replace 
or upgrade broken or outdated equipment for call handling support, and 
for additional printed materials requested by consumers.
            Odometer Fraud Program
    Additional funding in fiscal year 1999 program, would allow the 
agency to award cooperative agreements to four states. Cooperative 
agreements, at approximately $45 thousand each, will be awarded to two 
states to provide two State law enforcement agents (one from each 
State) to NHTSA for one year of in-depth training. The state agents 
will supplement NHTSA's odometer enforcement program and in return, 
will receive in-depth training in conducting odometer fraud 
investigations for prosecution in federal courts, similar to the 
cooperative program in fiscal year 1998.
    The remaining cooperative agreements will be awarded to two states 
at approximately $30 thousand each to enable those states to initiate 
new odometer enforcement activities or to enhance existing programs. 
These states will investigate odometer fraud for criminal or civil 
prosecution; assist defrauded consumers in recovering damages; monitor 
state motor vehicle titling systems to deter odometer fraud; and 
conduct public awareness campaigns.
    With these cooperative agreements, the agency plans to realize the 
goal of promoting or enhancing active state enforcement, help deter 
future violations of odometer laws, and save consumers millions in 
maintenance and repair costs.
            Defects Investigation
    It is not unusual for the Office of Defects Investigation to 
curtail or delay important testing or survey work because of lack of 
manpower to conduct the tests/surveys. This puts the agency at a 
distinct disadvantage when trying to demonstrate the existence of a 
safety-related defect. It also makes it difficult to maintain the 
performance measure of an 8-month average completion time for 
investigations. Funding requested in fiscal year 1999 will provide 
additional Vehicle Research and Testing Center (VRTC) contractor 
engineering and technical personnel to support defect identification 
and evaluation.
    Investigations, such as those currently being conducted on alleged 
problems with antilock brakes, are quite complex and, therefore, quite 
expensive. The additional funds for testing would enable ODI to conduct 
the tests necessary to fully understand complex problems and to 
complete investigations in a more timely manner. The addition of 
contractor engineering and technical support personnel for VRTC and 
added test funds for VRTC will enable investigations such as these to 
be conducted in a more complete and timely manner.
    Additional funds to provide contractor engineers and investigators 
in support of defect identification and evaluation, will allow the 
agency to conduct investigations of small population vehicle groups 
(i.e., transit buses, recreational vehicles, heavy trucks, fire & 
rescue vehicles, and motorcycles), which are not actively investigated 
at the present time. While the number of vehicles in these groups may 
not be large, the results of defects could be catastrophic. For 
instance, in 1996 there were 410 large truck occupants killed in single 
vehicle crashes. In that same year, however, there were 211 large truck 
occupants and 4,072 other vehicle occupants killed in multiple vehicle 
crashes involving large trucks. Similarly, the injury rate per 100 
million vehicle miles traveled for motorcyclists in 1994 was 549, while 
the injury rate for passenger car occupants was 160. Problems involving 
vehicles which carry large numbers of passengers, such as transit 
vehicles, can also have catastrophic consequences because of the 
numbers of people involved. Additionally, recreational vehicles 
frequently involve second stage manufacturers who may not be familiar 
with the underlying vehicles which they are converting, and fire and 
rescue vehicles travel at high speeds in emergency situations, possibly 
leading to devastating effects if crashes occur. All of these vehicle 
groups require special screening methods in order to be effectively 
monitored.
    The availability of one full-time investigator to perform on-site 
investigations of crashes and vehicle inspections would substantially 
assist the defects office in conducting investigations more 
expeditiously and thoroughly. This person would be on-call to visit 
sites, perform crash reconstruction, and inspect vehicles and 
equipment. These on-site inspections would assist defects 
investigations by providing analyses and documentation critical to 
determining whether a defect exists in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment.
    Finally, the addition of one contractor to conduct computer aided 
design (CAD) analyses would aid the office in conducting more thorough 
and timely investigations. CAD analyses are useful tools in 
investigations because they enable the agency to model relevant 
components and apply forces to the model in varying amounts and 
directions to determine whether the component is susceptible to 
failure. Such modeling could save the agency the cost of conducting 
multiple tests to determine failure.
                           nhtsa regulations
    Question. How is NHTSA demonstrating its commitment to performance-
based criteria as a regulatory philosophy? Which performance-based 
regulations were issued last year?
    Answer. The Safety Performance Standards program supports the 
achievement of the DOT and NHTSA safety goals to reduce fatalities, 
injuries, crashes, and their economic costs. For the fiscal year 1999 
budget, the program's safety goals are:
  --Reduce the 41,000 fatalities, 3.3 million injuries, and 6.3 million 
        police-reported motor vehicle crashes that annually result from 
        motor vehicle crashes by issuing vehicle safety standards and 
        developing and distributing of motor vehicle safety consumer 
        information.
  --Improve crash survival for the 1.6 million occupants of vehicles 
        involved in towaway frontal and side impact crashes each year.
    Examples of program performance measures that provide the linkage 
to achieving these goals are:
  --Average time required to complete rulemaking actions.
  --Percentage of petitions answered within 120 days.
  --Timely completion of model year crash tests.
  --Percent of the new vehicles sold in the U.S. annually for which 
        frontal impact safety information is available.
  --Percent of the new vehicles sold in the U.S. annually for which 
        side impact safety information is available.
  --Percentage of consumers who believe safety of the vehicle is a 
        ``very important'' consideration in their purchase decision.
  --Percentage of consumers who have heard of or seen the vehicle crash 
        test ratings.
    Under the Department's environmental and economic goals the safety 
performance program goals are to:
  --Improve the average fuel economy of new passenger car and light 
        truck fleets.
  --Reduce the incidence of the more than 1 million motor vehicle 
        thefts that occur annually in the United States.
    NHTSA seeks to make the largest possible impact on the overall 
number of crashes, fatalities, and injuries by focusing on discrete 
vehicle safety issues. A number of factors are considered, including 
problem size, feasibility and practicability of solution, potential 
benefits, and costs to the public per life and injury saved. The agency 
also gives emphasis to safety issues that are of critical concern to 
society, such as the safety of children and the disabled.
    All of NHTSA's rules are performance-based with respect to 
improving and maintaining the level of safety in vehicles, or 
supporting its non-safety mandates (e.g. theft program). Significant 
final rules and NPRM's issued in CY 1997 are:
    571.108--Final Rule.--Requires the rear of truck tractors be 
equipped with retro reflective material similar to that required on the 
rear of the trailers they tow to increase nighttime conspicuity.
    571.135--Final Rule.--Extended requirements to trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms or less in an effort to achieve international 
harmonization.
    571.201--NPRM.--The agency proposed to permit, but not require, the 
introduction of dynamic head protection systems currently being 
developed by vehicle manufacturers to provide added lateral crash 
protection.
    571.208--NPRM.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, the 
agency proposed amendment to provisions in the standard which specified 
that, during crash tests, all portions of a test dummy must remain in 
the vehicle throughout the test.
    571.208; 571.213--Final Rule.--Required vehicles with air bags to 
bear three new warning labels to reduce the adverse effects of air 
bags, especially for children.
    571.208--Final Rule.--Extended the time period during which vehicle 
manufacturers are permitted to offer manual cutoff switches for the 
passenger-side air bag for vehicles without rear seats or with rear 
seats that are too small to accommodate rear facing infant seats.
    571.208.--Temporarily amended the standard to allow vehicle 
manufacturers to quickly depower all air bags so that they inflate less 
aggressively. [This final rule allows unbelted sled test protocol as a 
temporary alternative to the full scale unbelted barrier crash test.]
    571.208--Final Rule.--Allows motor vehicle dealers and repair 
businesses to install retrofit manual on-off switches for air bags in 
vehicles owned by or used by persons whose requests for switches have 
been approved by the agency.
    571.210--NPRM.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, the 
agency proposed to require manufacturers to certify the anchorages of a 
voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belt (lap/shoulder belt) to the 
anchorage requirements for a mandatorily installed Type 2 safety belt.
    571.213--NPRM.--The agency proposed to require that motor vehicles 
and add-on child restraints be equipped with a means independent of 
vehicle safety belts for securing the child restraints to vehicle seats 
(Uniform Child Restraint Anchorages--UCRA).
    571.213--Final Rule.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, 
the agency corrected or clarified provisions to the final rule which 
added a greater array of sizes and weights of test dummies for use in 
compliance tests.
    571.214; 572--NPRM.--The agency proposed specifications and 
qualification requirements for a newly-developed anthropomorphic test 
dummy for compliance testing.
    571.216--NPRM.--In response to petitions for rulemaking, the agency 
proposed to revise the test procedure to make them more suitable to 
testing vehicles with highly sloped roofs or raised roofs.
                       vehicle safety compliance
    Question. Please break down how you intend to use the $5,675 
million requested for Vehicle Safety Compliance, and compare those 
expenditures with amounts allocated during fiscal year 1997 and planned 
for fiscal year 1998.
    Answer. The information follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    FISCAL YEAR     FISCAL YEAR     FISCAL YEAR
                    VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE                          1997            1998            1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Compliance Testing......................................      $3,625,000      $3,500,000      $3,463,000
Equipment Compliance Testing....................................       2,212,000       2,212,000       2,212,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................       5,837,000       5,712,000       5,675,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The budget for the Vehicle Safety Compliance Program has decreased 
slightly from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 1999 ($162,000) with the 
distribution of funding between the Vehicle Compliance Test Program and 
the Equipment Compliance Test Program remaining relatively constant. 
The key program components continue to be full-scale dynamic testing of 
new motor vehicles under the Vehicle Compliance Test Program. These 
tests assess impact and occupant crash protection performance for a 
wide spectrum of vehicles, including all sizes of passenger cars, vans, 
pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. The actual number of full-
scale vehicle tests for fiscal year 1997 and planned for fiscal year 
1998 and fiscal year 1999 are as follows: frontal crash tests--10, 27, 
and 26, respectively, for the three years; side impact tests--20 for 
each year; and side and rear fuel system integrity tests--20 for each 
year. Historically, the agency conducts 26-30 frontal crash tests each 
year. In fiscal year 1997, fewer frontal crash tests were conducted due 
to a major regulatory change, which allowed manufacturers the option of 
using an acceleration sled rather than a barrier crash to accommodate 
depowered air bags. In fiscal year 1999, the agency will also initiate 
compliance testing of upper interior head protection in vehicles using 
dynamic head form impacts, which is a standard that will begin to be 
phased in in fiscal year 1999. Under the Equipment Compliance Test 
Program, the agency will continue to test a majority of new child 
restraint systems and motorcycle helmets to the requirements of the 
safety standards. The actual number of tests for fiscal year 1997 and 
planned for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 remain constant at 60 
child restraint system tests for each year and 40 motorcycle helmet 
tests for each year.
    Question. Is your testing program geared to the evaluation of the 
most critical safety components of a vehicle?
    Answer. Yes. In the Vehicle Safety Compliance Program, we conduct 
full-scale dynamic tests of new motor vehicles to verify compliance of 
the most critical safety components of a vehicle to the requirements of 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In fiscal year 1999, three 
critical areas will be assessed for passenger cars and light trucks 
selected for dynamic testing: the performance of driver and front 
passenger air bags in frontal crashes, the performance of the vehicle 
structure in side impacts or intersection-type collisions, and the 
protection of occupants' heads from impacts to vehicle upper interior 
components, where the performance requirements will be phased in over 
five years. The fiscal year 1999 testing program will also include 
tests of passenger cars, light trucks, and school buses to assess the 
performance of critical fuel system components following a crash.
    Question. Please describe the relationship between your testing 
program and injury reduction.
    Answer. We continue to place emphasis on those areas in our 
compliance testing program which we believe offer the greatest 
potential for reducing deaths and injuries on the highways. All new 
passenger cars and light truck vehicles are being equipped with air 
bags to provide protection in frontal crashes. Requirements for side 
impact performance will become effective for all light trucks 
manufactured on and after September 1, 1998. Also, beginning on that 
date, 10 percent of each manufacturer's passenger cars and light trucks 
must meet requirements for upper interior head protection. The 
compliance testing program will include testing in each of these areas 
to ensure that the motoring public is receiving all the benefits of 
those lifesaving features as new vehicle models are introduced into the 
marketplace. The program also focuses on compliance testing of new 
child restraint systems and motorcycle helmets to ensure that the 
highest level of safety benefits are being realized from these devices. 
We strive to complete these programs as early in the fiscal year as 
possible to reduce the number of vehicles and/or equipment to be 
recalled in the event a noncompliance is found.
    Question. Could some parts of your safety testing program be 
eliminated because the safety impacts of non-compliance are minimal 
compared to non-compliance of other regulations?
    Answer. Compliance testing, inspection, and investigation of 
vehicles and equipment provide oversight and surveillance to ensure 
compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). 
From 24 to 28 of the 44 testable standards are included in each fiscal 
year's compliance testing program. Therefore, not all standards are 
tested each year. The standards selected for testing are based on a 
variety of factors. These include the potential to reduce casualties, 
the failure rate in prior years of testing, new product offerings 
certified to a standard, the introduction of new standards, and the 
cost of compliance testing. Ensuring that compliance requirements are 
met will result in the on-the-road fleet providing the benefits 
associated with all standards. Additionally, a rigorous safety testing 
program results in manufacturers designing vehicles and equipment with 
an appropriate margin of compliance to ensure that, should the agency 
perform a FMVSS test, the vehicle or equipment will meet the 
performance requirements in each standard. This results in 
comprehensive safety benefits from all FMVSS, since the higher the 
margin of compliance, the greater the reduction in injury risk.
    Question. How do you know that you are conducting the most cost 
effective mix of tests? For example, have you evaluated whether or not 
you should be conducting more side impact tests versus frontal occupant 
protection crashes?
    Answer. Compliance testing includes Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards (FMVSS) that promote crash avoidance and provide occupant 
protection during the crash event and following the crash event. Not 
every standard is tested every year, but we continually assess the 
frequency of each standard's testing when we revise the five-year plan 
for compliance testing each year. Frequently, vehicles are used for 
multi-standard testing to improve the overall cost effectiveness of our 
testing program. The FMVSS with the greatest potential benefits are 
tested yearly, including those to assess side impact and frontal crash 
protection. Data for 1996 from the agency's General Estimate System 
(GES) indicate that there were many more angular crashes (2,461,694) 
than head on events (110,379). However, the number of fatalities for 
both types of crashes (8,629 in angular crashes, 6,843 in head-on 
crashes) are significant with respect to the 42,065 fatalities reported 
in the GES. Given the higher percentage of head-on crashes that 
resulted in a fatality, we believe that our plan for 26 tests to assess 
frontal crash performance and 20 tests for side impact protection 
reflects a cost-effective mix of tests.
                          auto safety hotline
    Question. Please describe the improvements made in the Auto Safety 
Hotline program since last year.
    Answer. During calendar year 1997 the following improvements have 
been made in the Hotline:
  --All remaining personal computers were upgraded to Pentiums; the 
        desktop information was upgraded to be more user-friendly; 
        voice management system scripts have been changed to improve 
        call handling; staffing additions have been made to accommodate 
        peak time calls; and reporting features for the automatic call 
        distribution system have been upgraded to capture more data.
  --An outreach program has been implemented which is focusing 
        primarily on mass mailings to organizations such as state motor 
        vehicle departments, state consumer organizations, state 
        tourism agencies, state attorneys general, leasing and rental 
        companies and libraries. These organizations have been 
        requested to put posters in prominent places, make flyers 
        available, place articles in newsletters, and hotlink their 
        organization with the Auto Safety Hotline web site.
  --A few smaller projects have also been undertaken on a trial basis. 
        These include dioramas in several airports, Amtrak and Metro 
        stations, and tailgate displays or interior cards on buses in 
        selected jurisdictions. It should be noted that the space for 
        these latter projects has been donated by the respective 
        transit companies, with the agency paying only for printing 
        costs.
    Question. Please provide statistics on the use of the Hotline 
during each of the last three years.
    Answer. Total calls received by the Auto Safety Hotline during each 
of the last three calendar years are as follows: 1995--809,496 calls; 
1996--778,819 calls; and 1997--724,516 calls.
    Question. Please describe the outcomes or outputs that you measure 
pertaining to the Hotline.
    Answer. The Auto Safety Hotline performance is measured through:
  --Call composition and metrics, which includes gathering and 
        archiving the following data: calls received, calls answered, 
        abandoned calls, representative availability, average time to 
        handle calls, average delay time to handle call, systems 
        availability, number of fax requests, and number of electronic 
        mail requests;
  --Customer service surveys, such as bounce back cards, outreach 
        statistics gathered at the time of the call, annual surveys, 
        random call monitoring, and callbacks; and
  --Impact on the Defects Investigation Program. Over 75 percent of the 
        preliminary defect investigations are initiated by reports 
        received through the Auto Safety Hotline.
    The following Auto Safety Hotline outputs are measured:
    Mailings.--Number of documents pertaining to specific highway 
safety issues; number of recall information requests filled; and number 
of defect reports.
    Reports.--Daily, Weekly and Monthly Reports on call composition and 
metrics, mailings and outreach efforts.
    Data Capturing.--Caller information, vehicle information, recall 
requests, literature requests, outreach activities, and customer 
service survey results.
    Question. Have you changed and increased the use of the Internet to 
accomplish the objectives of the Hotline? How has it helped?
    Answer. The following changes have been made to the web site of the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to increase consumer 
use:
    A search engine has been installed to assist those customers with 
access to the World Wide Web in identifying recalls, defect reports, 
defect investigations, and technical service bulletins pertaining to a 
specific vehicle make and model.
    The option to download files (recalls, defect reports, defect 
investigations, technical service bulletins), free of charge, is 
available to customers who request large amounts of data.
    Customers can submit a defect report by completing the vehicle 
owner's questionnaire (the form on which consumers report potential 
safety-related defects to the Auto Safety Hotline) directly through the 
Internet.
    Question. When will the budget for the Hotline level off?
    Answer. The Hotline budget is expected to experience small yearly 
increases over the next several years. These increases are the result 
of the need to periodically upgrade equipment to the latest technology, 
expand Internet usage, replace or repair broken or malfunctioning 
equipment, print additional literature requested by consumers, account 
for cost of living increases for the contract personnel, and obtain 
some more highly skilled contact representatives as automobile systems 
become more complicated. Additionally, the budget could increase in 
order to expand the outreach program to increase the public's awareness 
of the Hotline, and the importance of contacting the agency to report 
potential problems with motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
    Question. Please prepare a detailed breakdown on a project-by-
project basis showing the expected uses of the $1.395 million requested 
for the Auto Safety Hotline.
    Answer. The following is a breakdown of the expected uses of the 
$1.395 million requested for the Auto Safety Hotline.

Defect Reporting..............................................  $219,000
Contract Personnel............................................   666,000
Telephone Bill................................................   260,000
Call Handling Support.........................................   125,000
Printing......................................................   125,000

    Question. Please prepare a side-by-side comparison on the spending 
allocation for fiscal year 1998 and planned spending allocation for 
fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. The following is comparison of the spending allocation for 
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal year
                                                Fiscal year      1999
                                                1998 budget    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defect Reporting..............................     $177,000     $219,000
Contract Personnel............................      640,000      666,000
Telephone Bill................................      250,000      260,000
Call Handling Support.........................       80,000      125,000
Printing......................................       75,000      125,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How much did you spend or will spend in fiscal year 1997, 
fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999 on contractor studies to 
evaluate or assess the use of future use of the Hotline.
    Answer. No contract funds were spent in fiscal year 1997 or 1998 to 
evaluate or assess the future use of the Hotline. During the past two 
years, the Hotline administered customer service surveys and utilized 
in-house teams to evaluate and recommend improvements. NHTSA does 
employ a contractor whose duties are to promote public awareness of the 
need to file owner reports of problems with motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment via the Auto Safety Hotline and the Internet. 
Approximately, $75,000 of the amount allocated to defects reporting was 
spent in fiscal year 1998 for the salary and benefits for that 
contractor. As part of his duties, he performed an analysis of the 
Hotline database to determine by zip code the demographics of the 
callers to the Hotline. That data will be refined in fiscal year 1999 
to enable to the Hotline outreach program to focus on population groups 
that heretofore have not utilized the Hotline to report problems with 
vehicles that may be safety-related. The remainder of the amount 
allocated to defects reporting was utilized for contracts with auto 
clubs for mailings to their members to encourage reporting of problems 
with vehicles and for printing of some outreach material that we were 
unable to print through GSA.
                      safety defects investigation
    Question. Please prepare a detailed breakdown on a project-by-
project basis showing the expected uses of the $3.421 million requested 
for Safety Defects Investigation.
    Answer. The breakdown of the expected uses of the $3.421 million 
requested for Safety Defects Investigation is as follows:

Defect Identification and Evaluation..........................$2,056,000
Testing/Surveys............................................... 1,015,000
Recall Monitoring and Performance.............................   350,000

    Question. Please prepare a side-by-side comparison on the spending 
allocation for fiscal year 1998 and planned spending allocation for 
fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. The comparison of spending allocation for fiscal year 1998 
and fiscal year 1999 is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal year
                                                Fiscal year      1999
                                                1998 budget    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defect Identification and Evaluation..........   $1,296,000   $2,056,000
Testing/Surveys...............................      832,000    1,015,000
Recall Monitoring and Performance.............      350,000      350,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Do you believe that spending more dollars on monitoring 
and investigating vehicle population groups involving relatively small 
numbers of vehicles is a cost effective investment?
    Answer. NHTSA believes that it is important to have the resources 
to investigate vehicle population groups involving smaller numbers of 
vehicles (i.e., heavy trucks, fire & rescue equipment, transit buses, 
recreational vehicles, and motorcycles) that are not currently 
monitored. While the number of vehicles in these groups is not as large 
as in passenger cars or light trucks, the results of defects could be 
catastrophic. For instance, in 1996, there were 410 large truck 
occupants killed in single vehicle crashes. In that same year, however, 
there were 211 large truck occupants and 4,072 other vehicle occupants 
killed in multiple vehicle crashes involving large trucks. Similarly, 
the injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for 
motorcyclists in 1994 was 549, while the injury rate for passenger car 
occupants was 160. Problems involving vehicles which carry large 
numbers of passengers, such as transit vehicles, can also have 
catastrophic consequences because of the large numbers of people 
involved. Additionally, recreational vehicles frequently involve second 
stage manufacturers who may not be familiar with the underlying 
vehicles which they are converting and fire and rescue vehicles travel 
at high speeds in emergency situations, possibly leading to devastating 
effects if crashes occur. All of these vehicle groups require special 
screening methods in order to be effectively monitored. The driver/
owners of these vehicles often do not file complaints with NHTSA, so it 
is important to develop working relationships between the agency and 
the fleets.
    Question. What are the advantages and disadvantages of focusing 
more of your resources on investigations of vehicle population groups 
with the largest number of vehicles?
    Answer. The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) currently focuses 
its resources on investigations of vehicle population groups with the 
largest number of vehicles. With the current level of resources, NHTSA 
believes that this is the most effective way to approach investigating 
potential safety-related defects. The disadvantage of utilizing all of 
ODI's investigative resources in this manner is that it makes it 
possible to overlook defects in other vehicle population groups that, 
while they may be smaller in numbers, could affect a large number of 
individuals. For instance, because transit buses carry large numbers of 
passengers, a defect could be catastrophic. Similarly, single vehicle 
crashes involving heavy trucks may affect only one individual. However, 
statistics demonstrate that in multiple vehicle crashes where one of 
the vehicles is a heavy truck, occupants of passenger vehicles are far 
more likely to be fatally injured. Motorcycles are associated with more 
serious consequences when a crash occurs than other types of vehicles 
in similar crashes. Given current resource limitations, it would not be 
beneficial to divert resources to address these vehicle populations; 
however, we believe that these are vehicle population groups to which 
additional resources should be devoted.
                         odometer fraud program
    Question. What were the three key improvements made since last 
year?
    Answer. During the past year, NHTSA organized and participated in a 
northeastern states odometer fraud task force conference which was held 
in New Hampshire. This was the first such conference held in that part 
of the country since 1988 and was attended by law enforcement officials 
from seven northeastern states. The conference resulted in the renewed 
commitment by these states to exchange intelligence information and 
join forces in combating interstate odometer fraud enterprises.
    Additionally during the past year, the victim notification program, 
which NHTSA initiated in 1993, produced a very significant outcome. 
Because that program led to claims against members of the National Auto 
Auction Association (NAAA), the NAAA passed a resolution urging all 
members to report violations of odometer laws to law enforcement 
agencies. NHTSA and the law enforcement community have been pressing 
NAAA for this commitment for several years.
    In addition, the funding for NHTSA's program to enter into 
cooperative agreements with three states to provide law enforcement 
officers to the Odometer Fraud Staff to receive training in return for 
assisting the staff with investigations has begun to change the 
management culture in the States. Recognizing the problem of odometer 
fraud, these states have determined the long term gain to be achieved 
by having better trained law enforcement officers outweighs the short 
term loss of staff. Each officer will receive extensive training in 
odometer fraud enforcement and will be assigned to conduct 
investigations in areas of the country where odometer fraud is most 
prevalent. This will increase the number of federal convictions 
substantially, thereby creating a deterrent in those areas, while 
providing the participating states with an officer capable of managing 
a comprehensive and effective odometer enforcement program.
    The agency continues to complete investigations and obtain criminal 
convictions by DOJ, and obtain restitution to victims of odometer 
fraud.
                             highway safety
    Question. What is the relationship, if any, between the allocation 
of resources in the highway safety budget and potential life saving or 
injury reduction outcomes?
    Answer. The traffic fatality toll for the next four years (1998-
2001) is expected to average 41,000 per year. This projection is 
associated with a rising annual travel and a slightly decreasing 
fatality rate per mile.
    NHTSA has clear opportunities to decrease traffic fatalities by 
changing driving practices--for example, by increasing seat belt and 
child safety use and by decreasing impaired driving. If the nation can 
achieve the belt use and impaired driving levels of the best states, we 
can save over 10,000 lives annually.
    Clearly, the agency is directing its resources to those areas where 
the greatest gains in saving lives can be made. The increased funding 
for the occupant protection program will provide more aggressive and 
targeted public information and education, improved state legislation 
and more intensive enforcement of those laws. The agency will place 
added emphasis in this area with the addition of new partners 
supporting the effort, strong promotion of primary enforcement in state 
belt use laws, and the implementation of the President's Plan to 
Increase Seat Belt Use Nationwide through the Buckle Up American 
campaign.
    The increased funding request for the alcohol program is also 
consistent with a focus on potential high payoff areas. The fiscal year 
1999 budget request will allow NHTSA to initiate demonstration projects 
in targeted States with higher alcohol-related fatalities, to implement 
innovative strategies from Partners in Progress and to ``move the 
needle'' closer to the 2005 goal. Outreach to national organizations 
will focus on the targeted states, as will enforcement demonstrations. 
Combating impaired driving by youth will be a major component of the 
fiscal year 1999 program. Additionally, the agency will respond to the 
greater demand from states and communities for the dissemination of 
``best practices'' and training. Finally, the agency will provide media 
support for the national campaigns and outreach to various partners.
    These resources will provide progress toward reducing alcohol-
related fatalities to 11,000 in 2005 (CY 1999 Target: 14,200; 1995 
baseline: 17,274) and increase observed safety belt use rates to 85 
percent by 2000 and reducing the number of child occupant fatalities 
(ages 0-4) by 15 percent by 2000, from a total of 685 in 1995.
    Question. Please document whether you are proposing to allocate 
most of your resources on those areas most likely to result in the 
biggest payoffs.
    Answer. The agency is allocating its resources most heavily to 
those areas which have the greatest potential for impact. Specifically, 
the areas receiving the bulk of the resources are the alcohol and 
occupant protection programs. Another important area is that of 
Enforcement and Emergency Services. The table below shows the amounts 
of funds requested for each of these areas.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                                    1998         1999
                                                  Approp.      Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALCOHOL, DRUG & STATE PROGRAMS:
    Alcohol Program...........................        7,675        9,728
    Drug Evaluation & Classification..........          476          920
    Pedestrian & Bicycles.....................          655          745
    Motorcycle Programs.......................          337          509
NATIONAL OCCUPANT PROTECTION PROGRAMS:
    Public Information & Education............        2,263        2,911
    Belt Law Compliance.......................        1,594        2,383
    Target Population Ed......................        1,540        3,050
    Evaluation & Technology Sharing...........          498          771
ENFORCEMENT & EMERGENCY SERVICES:
    Police Traffic Services...................        1,646        1,868
    Emergency Medical Services................        1,550        1,737
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please specify the scope, nature, and funding amounts for 
fiscal year 1998 activities and for fiscal year 1999 planned efforts on 
the issue of SUV's and on the issue of people driving while using their 
phones.
    Answer. The issue of SUV's is being investigated as part of the 
agency's vehicle compatibility research. To date, the agency's research 
that has been undertaken to evaluate passenger cars versus light trucks 
and vans (LTV's) (which includes SUV's) has found that the LTV's as a 
group substantially increase the risk of fatality to their collision 
partners in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. For fiscal year 1998, the 
agency plans to spend $1.3 million on vehicle compatibility issues. 
This funding will be used to continue the development of system 
modeling for the evaluation of vehicle aggressivity and compatibility. 
Also, crash tests are being conducted to develop concepts for 
countermeasures that increase vehicle compatibility and reduce vehicle 
aggressiveness. Full-system testing also will be used for model 
validation as well as for evaluating system performance. This effort 
will also include pedestrian protection research.
    The agency plans to spend $1.677 million in fiscal year 1999 for 
research on vehicle compatibility. This funding will be used to 
continue the development of system modeling and test procedures for the 
evaluation of vehicle aggressivity and compatibility. Also, activities 
will be initiated for evaluation of countermeasures to increase vehicle 
compatibility and reduce vehicle aggressiveness and for the development 
of a test procedure for evaluating vehicle aggressivity/compatibility. 
Full-system testing will be conducted for model validation as well as 
for determination of system performance. This effort will also include 
the continued assessment of pedestrian protection test procedures.
    No fiscal year 1998 money was spent on cellular phone research. A 
preliminary study that was funded earlier was published in fiscal year 
1998. The fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $800 thousand for 
driver behavior and performance, which will include research to 
determine the safety effects of using in-vehicle devices such as 
cellular phones, navigation systems, fax machines, and computers on 
drivers' attention to the driving task.
                safe communities injury control program
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated 
and the amount actually appropriated for the Safe Communities Injury 
Control program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
    Answer. See table below.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 1996  Fiscal year 1997  Fiscal year 1998
                          Program                          -----------------------------------------------------
                                                            Request   Approp  Request   Approp  Request   Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe Comm.................................................    5,600      675    1,800      900      900      900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table for the Safe Communities Injury 
Control Program, showing how all of the funds requested for fiscal year 
1999 area intended to be spent, and please include in that table a 
comparison with the amount provided for similar activities for fiscal 
year 1998.
    Answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                 Project                       1998        1999 planned
                                           expenditures    expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstration/Evaluation Projects.......        $525,000        $650,000
Peer-to-Peer Technical Assistance.......  ..............       1,150,000
Safe Communities Award Program..........  ..............          50,000
Overall Program Evaluation..............  ..............         350,000
Technical Assistance (service center,            375,000         600,000
 website, training, newsletters,
 materials, printing etc.)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Is this the last year that monies will be allocated for 
program evaluation purposes? Why is there a need to continue the 
evaluation components?
    Answer. This is the only year that NHTSA anticipates monies will be 
allocated for Safe Communities program evaluation purposes, separate 
from the demonstration grants.
    Two levels of evaluation of the program are being conducted. The 
first level involves process and impact measures that are incorporated 
into each of the Section 403 demonstration and evaluation projects. 
Evaluation at this level will yield information on the impact of the 
Safe Communities model on the traffic safety problem at each site as 
well as information on various types of activities and countermeasures 
that were implemented at that site.
    The 10 communities that will be added this year and next year will 
specifically use a ``continuous process improvement'' approach to 
improving traffic safety. The greatest difference between previous 
evaluations and this one is the time span. Whereas major program 
evaluations may take three years, this process looks at changes over 
periods as short as a week. The second largest difference is the 
feedback loop. Program interventions are identified and tested on a 
small scale. If, for instance, seat belt usage has risen as a result of 
the program activity, the program will be implemented on an expanded 
basis. If it remains the same or has fallen, the original changes will 
be dropped or altered. NHTSA feels that this approach is well suited 
for individual communities. This technique has shown some promise in 
some non-NHTSA research, but it is an adaptation of an approach which 
has shown its best success within companies that had top-down control 
and direction. It needs to be refined and tested for Safe Communities, 
where decision making is a group process.
    The second level of evaluation will compare a sample of the 
existing Safe Communities programs to a series of matched control sites 
which are not Safe Communities. Each matched-pair of communities will 
be in the same State. In addition to whether injuries and deaths 
decreased, this level of evaluation will look at how well the Safe 
Communities applied recommended best practices, and whether 
improvements which occurred in the short term continued in the loner 
term after less attention was given by the Safe Community committee. 
This will test whether the new safe behaviors have become community 
norms.
    Question. How will the fiscal year 1999 evaluation component differ 
from the fiscal year 1998 component?
    Answer. All of the Section 403 Safe Communities demonstration and 
evaluation projects for both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 have 
a component built into them that evaluates only the activities and the 
results achieved within each community, compared to baseline data of 
traffic injuries and fatalities in that community prior to the 
implementation of the Safe Communities model. In fiscal year 1999, 
there will be an independent, overall evaluation of the Safe 
Communities model consisting of a matched-pair comparison of a random 
sample of the existing Safe Communities with similar communities in the 
same state which are not Safe Communities.
    Question. Did NHTSA originally state that the evaluation phase of 
the Safe Communities program would only last a few years? When was the 
evaluation program originally intended to end?
    Answer. When the program was conceived in 1995, it was designed as 
a three-year demonstration and evaluation effort to test the 
implementation of the newly-developed model in several locations. Since 
that time, the program has gained momentum beyond expectation, 
requiring additional monitoring and evaluation. The agency has also 
learned of new techniques and strategies (i.e., continuous process 
quality improvement procedures) that it believes can significantly 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Safe Communities model. 
Demonstrating and evaluating the effect of these new techniques would 
be very beneficial to our efforts to establish effective community-
based efforts.
    Question. Why are you seeking to expand the number of evaluation 
sites during fiscal year 1999? What will be different or unique about 
those evaluations? What new results are likely or are we simply testing 
the injury control model in different locations?
    Answer. NHTSA is seeking to expand the number of evaluation sites 
during fiscal year 1999 to evaluate the effect of continuous 
improvement procedures in a number of different settings. However, this 
is not a matter of simply testing the model in different locations. It 
also involves a variety of different countermeasures and ``best 
practices'' implemented at various sites. Our objective is to gather a 
sufficient amount of information to ensure that nearly every community 
can apply effective Safe Communities procedures to its own special 
circumstances.
    Continuous improvement methodologies have been widely used and 
proven effective in business and hospital settings. In 1996-97, the 
Institute for Healthcare Improvement tested the use of these 
methodologies in ten communities. The program resulted in a number of 
program improvements. NHTSA is interested in testing the application of 
these methods in a wide variety of non-hospital settings to determine 
if they can: expedite the planning process and assist communities in 
more rapid countermeasure implementation; assist communities in 
obtaining early indications of potential effectiveness; and increase 
local support and commitment by demonstrating more immediate successes 
at lower costs.
    Question. In view of the fact that more than 350 communities 
already are participating in the Safe Communities program, why is it 
necessary to continue the evaluation process?
    Answer. Although more than 350 communities are already 
participating in the Safe Communities program, the majority of these 
communities have not yet fully adopted the four defining 
characteristics of the model: use of multiple sources of data, citizen 
involvement and participation, expanded partnerships, and use of a 
comprehensive injury control system approach. This model offers 
communities a new framework by which to address their motor vehicle 
injury problems and encourages communities to be innovative in how they 
develop their community programs.
    NHTSA and the states continue to invest significant resources in 
the implementation of Safe Communities. To date four research and 
demonstration projects have been funded and five projects are pending. 
Fiscal year 1999 funds request additional resources to support five 
additional demonstration projects that will test the efficacy of using 
a continuous improvement process model in a community setting. This is 
a new approach that has not been tested in the highway safety setting. 
These 14 demonstration projects will provide ``best practices 
information'' on an array of strategies that an evaluation will 
determine which are most useful to communities trying to replicate the 
model. The best way to obtain this information is to conduct numerous 
demonstrations in many locations.
    Question. Why is it critical to increase spending for the Safe 
Communities program by over 300 percent at this time?
    Answer. The Safe Communities program has gained momentum beyond the 
Agency's modest expectations. NHTSA's goal for fiscal year 1999 is to 
have 600 Safe Communities and the ultimate goal is to have thousands of 
Safe Communities throughout the country. Demand for technical 
assistance, best practices information, training, and materials by 
practitioners is extremely high. As a result, NHTSA will employ several 
new initiatives to fulfill this demand.
    NHTSA will establish a Network of Injury Prevention Medical 
Professionals to market and support Safe Communities. This network will 
be developed and maintained through the use of computer technology (e-
mail, bulletin board, Internet), video tele-conferences, distance 
learning, videotapes, conference calls, newsletters and meetings. The 
network participants will serve as an information resource, participate 
in a speakers bureau, develop position papers, give presentations, talk 
with a unified voice on traffic safety/Safe Communities, and market 
Safe Communities to their colleagues.
    A Regional Safe Communities Best Practices Workshop will be 
developed to focus on community implementation strategies and model 
programs such as the quality improvement approach. NHTSA will also 
provide grants to communities to document Safe Communities ``best 
practices'' in rural environments.
    Regional Strategy Planning Sessions will develop Intermodal Safe 
Communities strategic implementation plans with a variety of partners, 
in the business, medical and other communities. A series of planning 
meetings will be conducted to develop three to five year regional Safe 
Communities strategic implementation plans.
    A Safe Communities at Work Initiative will promote participation by 
large and small employers to become an integral part of the program. 
Finally, a series of forums will be conducted to help private sector 
partners understand how to expand their role in local community 
programs beyond providing small donations during fundraising events to 
setting and implementing company policies and expanding their community 
involvement.
    Question. Since you already have several Safe Community evaluations 
underway, wouldn't those results be sufficient to document the value of 
that approach and the benefits of the continuous process improvement 
strategy?
    Answer. The results from the five Safe Communities evaluations 
underway in fiscal year 1998 are not sufficient to document the value 
of the approach and the benefits of the continuous process improvement 
strategy for several reasons. First, although there are now hundreds of 
Safe Communities programs in existence, most of them are asking for 
more help to adapt and incorporate all aspects of the model most 
effectively to their particular set of circumstances. The model is 
challenging to communities because it encourages them to explore 
different strategies to implement a community motor vehicle injury 
program.
    The continuous improvement strategy is intended to assist 
communities in implementing the model more effectively. However, it 
adds yet another dimension which would benefit from proper evaluation. 
Significant demands have been placed on NHTSA to help communities 
identify the ``best practices'' that fit their unique situations. All 
of this requires much additional ``real world'' data.
    Finally, it has been the Agency's experience that when strategies 
are developed or evaluated in only a handful of communities, they are 
not well received in other locations as they fail to address the unique 
aspects of communities across the country. By increasing the number of 
demonstration sites from five to ten, it is likely that strategies will 
be perceived more favorably by a wider variety of communities.
    Question. Instead of increasing Section 403 funds for the Safe 
Communities program, would it not be advantageous to simply increase 
Section 402 funds for that program?
    Answer. It would not be advantageous to increase Section 402 funds 
instead of increasing Section 403 funds. These two funding mechanisms 
are complementary to each other. Section 403 funds are used to 
demonstrate and evaluate promising concepts and to provide technical 
assistance and best practices information based on the demonstration 
and evaluation results. Section 402 funds are used to provide seed 
money to local communities for planning and implementation efforts that 
build upon the lessons learned in the Section 403 demonstration and 
evaluation program.
    States already have demonstrated a strong commitment to the Safe 
Communities program. For example, although there was no earmarking in 
fiscal year 1997, states expended $2.3 million of Section 402 funds in 
support of Safe Communities. In fiscal year 1998, it is anticipated 
that states will expend an estimated $2.4 million. Given this 
investment by the states, the Agency believes that sufficient Section 
403 funding should be provided to ensure that these state commitments 
are supported with adequate technical assistance including the Safe 
Communities Service Center, website, bi-monthly bulletin, newsletter, 
awards program, best practices information, training and the four new 
peer-to-peer technical assistance initiatives. This Section 403 
activity is designed to help communities expand partnerships, adopt new 
strategies and methods to improve program outcomes and, in general, to 
provide a national support structure for the Safe Communities program.
                    alcohol, drug and state programs
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated 
and the amount actually appropriated for each of the subprograms in the 
Alcohol, Drug and State program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
    Answer. See table below.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year 1996    Fiscal year 1997    Fiscal year 1998
                       Program                       -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Request   Approp    Request   Approp    Request   Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol.............................................     9,057     8,398     9,015     8,800     7,675     7,675
DEC.................................................       957       907       600       599       476       476
Ped/Bike............................................       474       250       474       473       655       655
Motorcycle..........................................       327       327       338       337       337       337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table for each of the major components 
of the Alcohol program showing how all the funds requested for fiscal 
year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please include in that table a 
comparison with the amount provided for similar activities for fiscal 
year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the need for the 
requested increases, specifying any new projects and associated funding 
needs.
    Answer.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year--
                                               -------------------------
                     Area                                        1999
                                                1998 budget    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol Program...............................        7,675        9,728
    Education and Prevention..................        3,075        4,715
    Enforcement & Sanction....................        1,725        1,990
    Prosecution/Adjudication..................        1,150        1,200
    Youth.....................................        1,181        1,823
    Innovative Grants (Partners in Progress)..          544  ...........
Drug Evaluation and Classification Program....          476          920
Pedestrian and Bicycles.......................          655          745
    Pedestrian Program........................          300          275
    Bicycle Program...........................          205          290
    Pupil Transportation Safety...............          150          180
Motorcycle Program............................          337          509
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alcohol Program
    In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA will undertake a major new initiative to 
target five to ten states with the most significant opportunity to 
reduce alcohol-related fatalities and assist them to conduct highly 
focused problem identification and strategy development. Outreach to 
national organizations and enforcement demonstrations will focus on 
activities to support these targeted states. NHTSA will continue to 
work with diverse and high risk populations and focus a new initiative 
on college drinking and driving issues. In addition, NHTSA will 
demonstrate alternative sanctions, procedures for enforcing court 
orders, and emergency department intervention programs.
Drug Evaluation and Classification Program (DEC)
    NHTSA will utilize fiscal year 1999 funding to: (1) enhance the 
number of officers trained in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing 
(SFST); (2) promote the effective use of drug detection training 
modules; (3) expand drug information and training for prosecutors; (4) 
involve prosecutors in community drug prevention programs; (5) promote 
uniform sanctions for drug offenders; (6) continue research on drug 
effects and methods for detecting drug use; (7) explore the use of CD-
ROM technology to improve impaired driving detection for law 
enforcement; (8) promote the collection and analysis of state arrest 
data on drug-impaired drivers; (9) expand the knowledge and use of the 
DEC to community policing programs; and (10) develop tools for 
improving officer observation and articulation skills when testifying 
in alcohol and drug impaired driving cases.
Pedestrian and Bicycles Program
    In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA will undertake several new initiatives 
in the pedestrian and bicycle safety programs. In pedestrian safety, 
the agency plans to initiate a technical assistance demonstration 
program to focus pedestrian safety activities on those cities and 
communities with the greatest pedestrian safety problem. With regard to 
bicycle safety, the agency will initiate a review of available data and 
literature on bicycle helmet usage, injuries, costs of injuries, and 
experience with bicycle helmet laws. In addition, promising bicycle 
safety initiatives will be promoted via a new mini-grant program. The 
requested increase in pupil transportation safety will be used to 
develop a child safety seat curriculum and video to assist states and 
communities in transporting pre-kindergarten and Head Start children on 
school buses.
Motorcycle Program
    In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA plans to initiate (1) development of a 
training curriculum for judges and prosecutors on a variety of 
motorcycle safety issues; (2) a grant program to encourage states to 
increase the availability of motorcycle licensing through extended 
testing hours; and (3) a program to identify innovative approaches to 
address impaired motorcycle riding. The agency will also use the 
proposed increase in the motorcycle safety budget to support research 
initiatives including identification of more effective methods of 
motorcycle helmet labeling; effects of daytime running lights on 
motorcycle conspicuity; and motorcycle crash causation and resulting 
injuries.
    Question. Please identify the purpose and amount of each of the 10 
largest contracts funded under that area in fiscal year 1997.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997, NHTSA solicited innovative ideas to 
address the strategies outlined in the Partners in Progress: An 
Impaired Driving Guide for Action. Eight awards were made to innovative 
programs, seven of which represent the largest contracts in this 
program area. The ten largest contracts (some split-funded over a 
couple of fiscal years) include:
    American Prosecutors Research Institute, Alexandria, VA to support 
a national clearinghouse of legal information and research related to 
impaired driving and develop and implement prosecutor and judge 
training ($475,585).
    Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, Charlotte, NC on the 
identification and referral of impaired drivers through emergency 
department protocols ($470,752).
    Department of Health and Human Services, San Diego, CA on targeted 
reduction in alcohol related crashes ($400,000).
    Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, WA on 
the impact health professionals can make on DWI ($397,114).
    Mid America Research Institute, Winchester, MA on demonstrating the 
effectiveness of a DUI Court ($342,955).
    Traffic Injury Research Center, Ottawa, Canada and PA Liquor 
Control, Harrisburg, PA on the demonstration of the smart card 
technology ($282,925).
    Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Irving, TX, to develop regional 
impaired driving public policy workshops ($271,019).
    National Public Services Research Institute, Landover, MD on a 
safety economics resource center with an impaired driving component 
($206,958).
    University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, to research and 
evaluate a comprehensive program to reduce drinking and impaired 
driving among college students ($175,000).
    Scholastic, Inc, New York City, NY, to develop a national zero 
tolerance education program ($170,000).
    Question. How are the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 funds 
to be divided among such diverse purposes as outreach, evaluation 
studies, PSA's, and other strategies? What is the rationale for that 
allocation?
    Answer. The goal of the alcohol program is to reduce alcohol-
related fatalities to 11,000 by the year 2005. Success in meeting this 
goal will be achieved through a comprehensive approach to impaired 
driving using the strategies identified in the Partners in Progress: An 
Impaired Driving Guide to Action as the framework. A fundamental 
principle of the alcohol program is that of partnerships. NHTSA's role 
in this effort is to form new partnerships with organizations 
developing new and innovative approaches to combat impaired driving; 
and to develop, produce, and distribute materials to communities and 
organizations to support their outreach efforts; and to provide 
national public information and prevention initiatives to support local 
efforts, as identified in the table that follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
       Fiscal year 1998           Amount          1999          Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outreach.--Expand the number    $2,900,000  Expand the        $3,500,000
 of national organizations                   number of
 addressing the prevention                   national
 and health aspects of                       organizations
 alcohol and impaired                        whose
 driving. Develop materials                  constituents
 targeting the medical and                   represent
 public health communities to                diverse and
 assist in their educational                 high risk
 efforts both to their peers                 populations to
 and their constituents.                     support the
 Exhibit at national                         agency's
 conferences, supporting the                 alcohol
 goals of the Partners in                    programs,
 Progress initiative.                        targeting
                                             organizations
                                             whose mission
                                             is to reach
                                             youth. Special
                                             emphasis will
                                             be placed on
                                             reaching
                                             college
                                             students.
                                             Provide
                                             opportunities
                                             for
                                             organizations
                                             to participate
                                             alcohol
                                             programs at
                                             the state and
                                             local levels.
                                             Continue to
                                             exhibit at
                                             national
                                             conferences in
                                             support of
                                             Partners in
                                             Progress goals.
Evaluation Studies.--A             540,000  Complete             620,000
 variety of key legislation                  evaluation of
 (.08 BAC, zero tolerance,                   the
 ignition interlocks),                       effectiveness
 enforcement (use of passive                 of vehicle
 sensors), adjudication                      sanctions,
 (sanctions) and public                      hospital
 information and education                   reporting of
 programs will be evaluated                  BAC's, why
 to determine their                          there are
 effectiveness and to measure                fewer young-
 progress in reducing alcohol-               alcohol
 related crashes.                            impaired
                                             drivers,
                                             innovative
                                             enforcement
                                             techniques
                                             (saturation
                                             patrols),
                                             complete
                                             evaluation of
                                             innovative
                                             sanctions for
                                             repeat
                                             offenders, and
                                             measure
                                             progress in
                                             reducing
                                             alcohol-
                                             related
                                             crashes.
Materials and Public Service     2,275,000  Continue fiscal    3,333,000
 Announcements.--Develop,                    year 1998
 produce, and distribute                     activities,
 materials in support of the                 but with
 alcohol programs, including                 additional
 a new Partners in Progress                  emphasis on
 campaign and ongoing                        youth and
 activities such as TEAM,                    diverse
 Campaign Safe & Sober, and                  populations.
 the Ad Council Drunk Driving                Develop new
 Campaign.                                   materials for
                                             law
                                             enforcement
                                             related to
                                             sobriety
                                             checkpoints
                                             and alcohol
                                             detection
                                             devices.
Other Strategies.--Innovative    1,960,000  Continue 1998      2,275,000
 grants, targeted                            activities and
 enforcement, technology to                  initiate
 identify impaired drivers,                  demonstration
 research.                                   projects in 5-
                                             10 targeted
                                             states with
                                             high alcohol
                                             crash rates,
                                             focusing on
                                             enforcement
                                             and public
                                             education,
                                             improved laws,
                                             focus on .08
                                             initiatives as
                                             identified in
                                             the
                                             President's
                                             Plan, convene
                                             a national
                                             summit for
                                             judges,
                                             research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please submit for the record a copy of your 1998 spending 
plan for that area as well as the occupant protection area.
    Answer.

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Alcohol Program................................................... 7,675
    Education and Prevention...................................... 3,075
    Enforcement & Sanction........................................ 1,725
    Prosecution/Adjudication...................................... 1,150
    Youth......................................................... 1,181
    Innovative Grants (Partners in Progress)......................   544
Drug Evaluation and Classification Program........................   476
Pedestrian and Bicycles...........................................   655
    Pedestrian Program............................................   300
    Bicycle Program...............................................   205
    Pupil Transportation Safety...................................   150
Motorcycle Program................................................   337
Occupant Protection Program....................................... 6,610
    Public Information & Education................................ 2,263
    Belt Law Compliance........................................... 1,594
    Target Population Education................................... 1,540
    Evaluation & Technology Sharing...............................   498
    Patterns for Life.............................................   715
Air Bag Safety Program............................................ 2,000

    Question. Please discuss all of the current NHTSA-supported studies 
underway regarding the benefits of 0.08 BAC laws. When are those 
studies expected to be released? Please estimate the amount of funding 
for each of those studies and describe the specific purpose of each 
study.
    Answer. NHTSA has supported two studies in the past on the effects 
of 0.08 BAC. One study, published in 1991, found a 12 percent decrease 
in alcohol-related fatalities in California in 1990, the year 0.08 BAC 
went into effect along with an administrative license revocation law. 
The second study was conducted by NHTSA staff and published in 1995. 
That study found significant reductions in nine measures of alcohol-
related fatalities in four out of five states that had .08 laws 
compared to the rest of the states at .10 BAC.
    Presently, NHTSA has two studies of the effects of 0.08 BAC in 
progress. One is a study of the effects of 0.08 BAC in North Carolina 
on alcohol-related fatalities, crashes, arrests and other measures 
($103,000). That study is expected to be completed by July 1998. The 
second study is on the effects of 0.08 BAC in nine states that have had 
some experience with the law ($49,000). Numerous effects are being 
analyzed in this study including the effects on alcohol-related 
fatalities and on per capita alcohol consumption. That study is 
expected to be completed in August 1998.
    Question. What studies on 0.08 BAC laws are planned with fiscal 
year 1999 funds? Please estimate the amount of funding for each of 
those studies.
    Answer. NHTSA plans to continue to evaluate the effects of 0.08 BAC 
laws on alcohol-related crashes and fatalities as more states consider 
and adopt such laws. In fiscal year 1999, $150,000 is being allocated 
to conduct a multi-state study of the effects of 0.08 BAC in states 
that have recently adopted such laws.
    Question. What studies are underway examining the impact of the 
0.08 BAC law on the courts and enforcement officers? Will those studies 
be conducted during fiscal year 1998 or during fiscal year 1999? Please 
delineate associated funding amounts for each year.
    Answer. NHTSA examined the impact of the 0.08 BAC law on the courts 
and enforcement officers in a California study published in 1991. It 
was found that while there was a slight increase in driving while 
intoxicated (DWI) arrests in California in 1990, the year 0.08 BAC and 
administrative license revocation laws went into effect, the increase 
was not enough to overburden the police or the courts. In the following 
year (1991), DWI arrests went back down below the 1989 level, possibly 
due to the general deterrent effect that the two laws (and their strict 
enforcement) had on drinking and driving in California.
    NHTSA does plan to include examining the impact on the courts and 
police in multi-state evaluation of the effects of 0.08 BAC laws in 
fiscal year 1999. The total funds for that study will be $150,000 in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Question. Please provide additional details on the proposal to 
target five to ten states with the most significant opportunity to 
reduce alcohol-related fatalities.
    Answer. The intent of this proposed demonstration program is to 
target the top five or ten states having the most significant alcohol-
related motor vehicle crash problem with focused support. The 
components of the projects will include the identification of impaired 
driving problems; the development of performance measures; the 
implementation of countermeasures; and the evaluation of results. 
Technical assistance will be provided to the states to address each of 
these components. Program initiatives will focus on high risk 
populations including youth, repeat offenders, and 21-34 year olds. 
Final results will be distributed nationally.
    The state demonstration projects will build on the innovative 
strategies from the Partners in Progress: An Impaired Driving Guide for 
Action and will focus on prevention, education, enforcement, 
intervention, and treatment. Outreach to national organizations with 
state affiliates in the demonstration states will compliment state and 
local coalition building efforts.
                   drug evaluation and classification
    Question. Please prepare a detailed breakdown of how the $920,000 
requested for the Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program 
would be used and compare that allocation to the fiscal year 1997 and 
fiscal year 1998 expenditures.
    Answer.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                  --------------------------------------
                                   1997 budget  1998 budget  1999 budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Evaluation and                        599          476          920
 Classification Program..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By fiscal year 1997, most states with high drug-impaired driving 
populations had established DEC programs in some of their communities. 
NHTSA concentrated its efforts to support the program by expanding 
legal research, technical assistance, and training to state and local 
prosecutors and judges through the American Prosecutor Research 
Institute ($300 thousand) and the National Judicial College ($100 
thousand) to counter new legal challenges as the program spread. The 
agency continued to assist the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police ($75 thousand) to maintain the national standards for 
performance and certification of Drug Recognition Experts. Research 
projects ($124 thousand) focused on testing new technology to detect 
drugs with urine screening devices and a study to explore improvements 
to the DEC procedures.
    In fiscal year 1998, NHTSA's approach was to maintain the DEC 
program at minimum support level by providing support for (a) IACP ($50 
thousand) and the National Traffic Law Center ($250 thousand) to 
provide technical assistance; (b) training to prosecutors in recent DEC 
sites and maintain legal research on impaired driving; and (c) 
assistance to states to assure program continuity and sharing of 
training instructor resources. Research activities ($176 thousand) 
concentrated on detecting the incidence of drugs and driving.
    NHTSA's fiscal year 1999 requested funding will allow support of 
the DEC program as an effective tool for reducing impaired driving. The 
agency will serve in its leadership role by maintaining the quality and 
integrity of the program. Funding provides for a summit level 
conference ($250 thousand) that brings judicial educators, judges, 
alcohol researchers and highway safety experts together to educate and 
share technology advances. This meeting will expand knowledge and 
acceptance of new impaired driving techniques and technology. Judicial 
educators will be provided with a conference kit for duplication in 
each state. Additionally, funding ($200 thousand) is directed to 
research and advance new impaired driving detection technology.
    A program to promote and renew a training emphasis on detecting 
drug-impaired drivers for law enforcement ($250 thousand) will increase 
impaired driving arrest. Funding will support new prevention, 
education, and technical assistance activities for law enforcement, 
prosecutors, judges, and the public as identified in the President's 
Initiative on Drugs, Driving and Youth ($220 thousand).
    Question. Please describe the performance measures associated with 
that program, especially the outcomes and outputs.
    Answer. The goals of the DEC program are to increase the number of 
drugged drivers convicted in DEC sites and reduce drug-impaired driving 
and drug use by youth. This goal is a significant challenge, as there 
is growing evidence that the use of drugs, especially by youth, is on 
the upswing. In addition, studies of drivers involved in crashes show 
that many have used drugs often in combination with alcohol.
    Specific outcome measures include the number of crashes in which 
drugs are involved and the number of DEC related convictions. Since 
these data are not always available, plans are underway to increase the 
collection of such data.
    Question. Please provide an update on any studies that NHTSA has 
underway or planned that will help the criminal justice system deal 
with drug-impaired drivers. How much will be spent on those during 
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. NHTSA has several studies underway that will serve as 
resources to the criminal justice system.
    A joint NHTSA/NIDA laboratory study designed to improve DEC 
examination procedures is reaching completion. In this study subjects 
were dosed with one of the following drugs: cannabis, alprezolam, 
amphetamine, codeine, or placebo. Either a low or high dose was 
administered. The measurable signs of these drugs on cognitive, ocular, 
physiological and motor performance were examined. A multivariate 
discriminant function analysis is being performed to determine the most 
accurate detection procedure. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $25,000)
    A NHTSA study is near completion of the incidence of drugs in non-
fatal seriously injured drivers. Over 2,000 injured motorists taken to 
the hospital for treatment have been screened for drug use while 
driving. Confirmatory tests are currently being conducted on all 
presumptive positive samples. Culpability analysis will help determine 
if drug use is associated with driver crash responsibility. A report is 
expected by the end of 1998. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $80,000)
    NHTSA is funding a comprehensive review of research on the 
behavioral effects of antihistamines on driving related skilled 
performance and crash rates. Laboratory, simulator, and on-the-road 
studies on the effects of antihistamines, as well as the interaction of 
antihistamine and alcohol use will be examined. This study will 
determine the extent to which antihistamines, especially sedating over-
the-counter antihistamines, appear to represent a highway safety 
hazard. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $28,000)
    A literature review of research on drug use and driving with a 
particular focus on the role of drugs other than alcohol in traffic 
crashes is being completed. This study looked at epidemiological 
research on drugs and traffic crashes, including literature on the drug 
use of various subgroups of drivers. A final report is due by the end 
of 1998. (No fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 funding)
    NHTSA, in conjunction with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration (SAMHSA), has conducted a survey of the 
prevalence and patterns of substance use among drivers in the United 
States. A report on this nationally representative sample of over 11 
thousand drivers regarding their driving under the influence of drugs 
other than alcohol will be released in the Fall of 1998. (No fiscal 
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 funds)
    Question. Please provide an update on any studies that NHTSA has 
underway or planned that will help the law enforcement community deal 
with drug-impaired drivers. How much will be spent on those during 
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. NHTSA has several studies underway that will serve as 
resources to the law enforcement community:
    A joint NHTSA/NIDA laboratory study designed to improve DEC 
examination procedures is reaching completion. In this study subjects 
were dosed with one of the following drugs: cannabis, alprezolam, 
amphetamine, codeine, or placebo. Either a low or high dose was 
administered. The measurable signs of these drugs on cognitive, ocular, 
physiological and motor performance were examined. A multivariate 
discriminant function analysis is being performed to determine the most 
accurate detection procedure. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $25,000)
    A NHTSA study is near completion of the incidence of drugs in non-
fatal seriously injured drivers. Over 2,000 injured motorists taken to 
the hospital for treatment have been screened for drug use while 
driving. Confirmatory tests are currently being conducted on all 
presumptive positive samples. Culpability analysis will help determine 
if drug use is associated with driver crash responsibility. A report is 
expected by the end of 1998. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $80,000)
    NHTSA is funding a comprehensive review of research on the 
behavioral effects of antihistamines on driving related skilled 
performance and crash rates. Laboratory, simulator, and on-the-road 
studies on the effects of antihistamines, as well as the interaction of 
antihistamine and alcohol use will be examined. This study will 
determine the extent to which antihistamines, especially sedating over-
the-counter antihistamines, appear to represent a highway safety 
hazard. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $28,000)
    A literature review of research on drug use and driving with a 
particular focus on the role of drugs other than alcohol in traffic 
crashes is being completed. This study looked at epidemiological 
research on drugs and traffic crashes, including literature on the drug 
use of various subgroups of drivers. A final report is due by the end 
of 1998. (No fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 funding)
    NHTSA, in conjunction with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration (SAMHSA), has conducted a survey of the 
prevalence and patterns of substance use among drivers in the United 
States. A report on this nationally representative sample of over 11 
thousand drivers regarding their driving under the influence of drugs 
other than alcohol will be released in the Fall of 1998. (No fiscal 
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 funds)
    Question. How much of the DEC training provided to enforcement 
officers is being paid for by NHTSA?
    Answer. Currently no Section 403 funds are being used for this 
purpose. Fiscal year 1994 was the last year that the agency used 403 
dollars to fund DEC instructor services to train law enforcement 
officers.
    Question. In view of the fact that the DEC program is a relatively 
mature program, why is it critical to increase funding at this time?
    Answer. Some states have institutionalized the DEC program in 
selected communities while others are still struggling. The number of 
DEC trained officers remains less than 1 percent of all patrol 
officers.
    The available information from studies of drivers who have been 
involved in crashes indicates that many have used drugs. NHTSA 
estimates that drugs continue to be used by approximately 10 percent to 
22 percent of drivers involved in crashes, often in combination with 
alcohol. Additional studies show that many drivers injured in crashes 
or cited for traffic violations also have used drugs.
    In the research to complete the Presidential Initiative on Drugs, 
Driving and Youth, the Federal multi-agency task force identified the 
DEC program as the only program in the country that was specifically 
designed to remove drug-impaired drivers from our highways.
    It is critical that NHTSA continue the national leadership role in 
the DEC program to ensure that training and testing standards are 
strictly followed and accepted by the courts as valid. Any modification 
or improvement must be done on a national level in order to maintain 
the program's validity and integrity. This will ensure that the 
protocol is conducted in a systematic and standardized manner across 
the country.
    The additional funding will: (1) increase and promote training in 
Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) training and training for 
prosecutors; (2) involve prosecutors in community drug prevention 
programs; (3) promote uniform sanctions for drug offenders; (4) 
continue DEC related research; (5) promote the collection and analysis 
of state arrest data on drug impaired drivers; (6) develop courtroom 
skills for testifying in alcohol and drug impaired driving cases; and 
(7) expand DEC to community policing programs.
    Question. Please summarize specific advances and benefits that have 
resulted from NHTSA's research on DEC during the last two years. What 
specific changes in the DEC protocol have resulted from that research?
    Answer. Several of the essential studies implemented over the past 
two years are still in progress. When completed, the results and 
recommendations will be presented to the DEC Technical Advisory Panel, 
Highway Safety Committee, International Association of Chiefs of 
Police. Some of the most important activities include (a) joint NHTSA/
NIDA laboratory research to validate and improve DEC procedures; (b) 
clinical results which validate the DRE evaluation is procedure; (c) a 
study to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the DEC program in 
different enforcement contexts, and to determine the relative 
importance of the various types of information available to DEC 
officers in those different contexts; (d) a study to analyze blood 
specimens from drivers injured in crashes and to conduct an analysis of 
responsibility to assess the causal role of drugs in those crashes, and 
(e) a field test of inexpensive drug screening kits to determine their 
accuracy and usefulness in actual law enforcement settings for both DEC 
and non-DEC officers.
    Question. Has NHTSA or any one else ever conducted any studies on 
the net outcome of the DEC?
    Answer. NHTSA has conducted two formal studies that have examined 
the impact of the DEC program on enforcement and adjudication and to 
review the experiences of sites that have implemented the DEC program.
    A 1992 study looked at arrests and convictions in eleven 
communities in Arizona, California, Colorado, New York, and Texas which 
had the DEC program for at least two years. Data from before and after 
the initiation of the DEC program in each community was examined and 
compared to state-matched communities which had not adopted DEC. The 
study found that prior to the DEC program implementation, arrests for 
drugged driving were very rare. After initiating the program, DEC sites 
showed increased drugged driving arrests and convictions while there 
were not similar increases in the comparison communities. Overall, 65 
percent of the drivers suspected of being under the influence of drugs 
were convicted on an impaired driving charge. Comparable conviction 
rates for the alcohol impaired drivers in these sites ranged from 80 to 
90 percent.
    More recently, Arizona (1994), New Mexico (1997) and New York 
(1997) found conviction rates of 90 percent and above for drugged 
driving cases made by Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) officers. 
Additionally, Arizona's 500 Case DRE Validation Study found that most 
of the drivers in the study would not have been arrested and prosecuted 
for drug-impaired driving prior to the implementation of the DEC 
program.
    Another NHTSA study looked at the growth and expansion of the DEC 
program in an attempt to identify key elements of successful programs. 
This study found that the withdrawal of NHTSA funding for DEC program 
maintenance and expansion in 1995 had little impact on existing 
programs (most showed long term viability) and that the DEC program 
continues to expand although more slowly than in the early years.
    Question. Are there studies which address the following questions: 
What happens to people who are arrested because of DEC? Are they 
typically convicted? Are those same people likely to be convicted again 
for driving under the influence of drugs?
    Answer. The comprehensive DEC evaluation conducted on people 
arrested for driving under the influence of drugs showed that a high 
proportion of such offenders enter a guilty plea. A number of state and 
local agencies have conducted studies to determine the conviction rate 
of DEC-related arrests. Studies conducted in Arizona, New Mexico, 
Maryland, and New York all suggest a conviction of 90 percent or 
greater. In Minnesota, studies found a conviction rate of about 80 
percent.
    There are currently no formal studies that we are aware of that 
measure the recidivism rate for DEC cases. Several states are 
attempting to collect such data. The Metro Dade, Florida Police 
Department estimates that their recidivism rate is less that 10 
percent. Preliminary data from New York State Police shows a recidivism 
rate of only 2-3 percent.
    Question. What new and innovative activities will be funded?
    Answer. NHTSA will: enhance the number of officers trained in 
Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST); revise and promote the 
effective use of drug detection training modules; expand drug 
information and training for prosecutors; involve prosecutors in 
community drug prevention programs; promote uniform sanctions for drug 
offenders; continue research on drug effects and methods for detecting 
drug use; explore the use of CD-ROM technology to improve detection of 
impaired driving; promote the collection and analysis of state arrest 
data on drug impaired drivers; develop tools for improving observation 
and articulation skills when officers testify in alcohol and drug 
impaired driving cases; and expand the use of the DEC procedures in 
community policing programs.
    Question. What is NHTSA doing to work with the States to improve 
laws pertaining to drug-impaired driving? How much is in your fiscal 
year 1998 spending plan and fiscal year 1999 budget request for that 
activity? (In your answer, please assume there is no grant program in 
that area.)
    Answer. NHTSA provides legal research on existing drug-impaired 
driving laws in the states. This is carried out through ongoing in-
house legal research and an annual publication of the Alcohol-Highway 
Safety: A Digest of State Alcohol-Highway Safety Related Legislation. 
The Digest serves as a state law reference guide and is used for 
comparisons and improvements to existing state laws. In fiscal year 
1998, no funds were specifically dedicated to this effort.
    In fiscal year 1999, under the Drugs, Driving and Youth Initiative 
($950 thousand), NHTSA will work with national and state leaders to 
develop a legislative assessment of state drugged driving laws. Such 
laws are inconsistent and frequently difficult to enforce, often 
hampering law enforcement and the courts.
    NHTSA will develop and provide model laws and effective laws used 
by various states as examples for other states desiring to improve 
their laws. A 3-5 state demonstration project, with a strong evaluation 
component, will assess and provide methodology to improve state drugged 
driving laws. Technical assistance will also be provided to states 
interested in expanding and/or strengthening their drugged driving 
legislation.
    Question. What else could NHTSA do in this area?
    Answer. There are other areas that NHTSA could focus on to address 
the drugged driving problem such as technology, public education and 
research.
                        pedestrians and bicycles
    Question. Why is an increase necessary in this area?
    Answer. Pedestrian and bicycle fatalities constituted about 15 
percent of traffic fatalities (6,173) in 1996. Seventy-five percent of 
all bicycle crashes involve head injuries; however, despite their 
effectiveness, only 18 percent of riders wear them.
    In the past, pedestrian and bicycle programs have received very 
limited funding. Consequently, initiatives have been few and modest. 
Over the past several years, NHTSA has attempted to expand its 
initiatives in these areas, and most recently has emphasized pedestrian 
and bicycle safety in the context of Safe Communities. In addition, two 
public-private partnerships, requiring assistance and support, have 
been formed to promote safe walking and bicycling--The Partnership for 
a Walkable America and the National Bicycle Safety Network.
    Three years ago, the agency had one initiative for bicycle safety: 
the Ride Like a Pro Bicycle Safety Event. By fiscal year 1998, NHTSA 
will have three funded initiatives in bicycle safety and plans to 
expand these to five or six in fiscal year 1999. New initiatives in 
bicycle safety include a review of available data and literature on 
bicycle helmet usage, injuries, costs of injuries, and experience with 
bicycle helmet laws; and a new mini-grant program to involve national 
organizations in bicycle safety.
    The pedestrian safety program has fared somewhat better over the 
past few years but additional technical assistance and program 
activities are needed to address this significant problem area. The 
agency is completing development of Spanish-language materials which 
address older adult and child pedestrian risks and will begin work with 
national organizations to distribute and field test the materials. 
During fiscal year 1999, new pedestrian safety initiatives will focus 
on identifying and documenting ``best practices case studies'' in 
pedestrian safety; developing a technical assistance workshop for 
communities and local organizations; increasing outreach to health care 
professionals, employers and intergovernmental organizations; and 
marketing the pedestrian safety tool kit to safe communities sites. The 
agency will also initiate a demonstration program to target pedestrian 
safety initiatives to cities with the greatest number of fatalities.
    Until recently, the agency had few pupil transportation safety 
projects. An in-service school bus driver safety curriculum is being 
pilot-tested and will be finalized in fiscal year 1998. In addition, 
the agency will initiate new cooperative agreements with several 
localities to develop innovative strategies for reducing the illegal 
passing of stopped school buses. In fiscal year 1999, the agency will 
develop a child safety seat curriculum and video to assist communities 
in transporting pre-kindergarten and Head Start children.
    Question. Please describe the measures of performance associated 
with this program, and list the resulting outcomes and outputs.
    Answer. The measures of performance for the Pedestrian and Bicycle 
Safety Program are the number of pedestrian and bicycle-related 
injuries and fatalities occurring on public roadways. The resulting 
outcomes are to (1) reduce pedestrian fatalities to 4,925 and bicycle 
fatalities to 722 by the Year 2000; (2) reduce pedestrian injuries to 
81,000 and bicycle injuries to 54,000 by the Year 2000.
    The outputs for the pedestrian and bicycle safety program include:
    Pedestrian safety program materials (for children and older adults) 
for Hispanic populations.
    Pedestrian safety ``tool kit'' for use by local communities to 
improve pedestrian safety.
    Walkability Checklist and ``Walk a Child to School Day'' with the 
Partnership for a Walkable America.
    Technical Assistance Workshop to help communities address 
pedestrian safety issues.
    Technical assistance demonstration program focusing pedestrian 
safety activities in cities and communities with the greatest 
pedestrian safety problem.
    White paper, with case studies, on successful community programs 
reducing pedestrian and bicycle injuries.
    Bicycle Safety Community Handbook.
    ``Cops on Bikes'' training enabling law enforcement to provide 
bicycle safety education while on patrol.
    Bicycle safety materials and approaches for use with at-risk youth 
in urban areas.
    Mini-grant program to involve national organizations in bicycle 
safety.
    School bus operator in-service training program.
    Program to reduce illegal passing of stopped school buses.
    Question. How much of this account is spent on safety measures 
involving school buses?
    Answer. Approximately $180,000 of the fiscal year 1999 Pedestrian-
Bicycle Program account is designated for school bus safety.
    Question. Please prepare a table showing both FHWA and NHTSA 
investments in those areas for each of the last three fiscal years and 
requested for fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. The information is presented below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Fiscal year by program area               NHTSA       FHWA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996:
    Pedestrian Safety.............................   $152,000   $198,000
    Bicycle Safety................................     55,000    110,000
    Pupil Transportation..........................     11,000  .........
Fiscal year 1997:
    Pedestrian Safety.............................    222,000    374,000
    Bicycle Safety................................    122,000    109,000
    Pupil Transportation..........................    130,000  .........
Fiscal year 1998:
    Pedestrian Safety.............................    300,000     63,000
    Bicycle Safety................................    205,000     42,000
    Pupil Transportation..........................    150,000  .........
Fiscal year 1999:
    Pedestrian Safety.............................    275,000    515,000
    Bicycle Safety................................    290,000    410,000
    Pupil Transportation..........................    180,000  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                automatic external defibrillators (aed)
    Question. To ensure that training standards for use of AED's are 
not unnecessarily burdensome and are consistent with new easy to use 
AED technology, the Committee encouraged the Department to work with 
state departments of transportation and other appropriate state 
agencies to review their defibrillator training requirements and to 
modify those requirements where appropriate. How did you respond to 
that request? What specific contracts have been signed to implement 
that effort?
    Answer. NHTSA responded to the Committee's request in the form of a 
cooperative agreement with the National Association of State EMS 
Directors (NASEMSD). This agreement is currently being negotiated 
utilizing fiscal year 1998 funds. This agreement will enable the 
NASEMSD to conduct and analyze a survey of appropriate state offices to 
determine current training requirements and plans for future amendments 
in these requirements. A final report on this survey is due five months 
following award. The agency and the NASEMSD will utilize findings of 
the survey to develop plans for encouraging and supporting appropriate 
accommodation of new AED technology.
     youth, drugs, and driving initiative and other youth oriented 
                               activities
    Question. The budget justification states that funding will support 
a pre-driver licensure drug testing demonstration program. Please 
describe the scope, nature, and purpose of that initiative. How would 
it work? How much money is planned for that activity?
    Answer. The pre-driver licensure drug testing demonstration program 
is envisioned as one component of a systematic and comprehensive 
program designed to reduce the incidence of drug use by teens and to 
reduce driving under the influence of drugs. A report entitled 
Presidential Initiative on Drugs, Driving and Youth recommended 
concerted efforts to improve the DUID (Driving Under the Influence of 
Drugs) system. A key part of the strategy laid out in that report was a 
demonstration program to assist states in developing and testing core 
elements of a pre-driver licensure drug testing program. The 
demonstration program would involve 2-4 states over a two-year period 
implementing pre-driver licensure drug testing programs.
    One approach to operating a pre-driver licensure drug testing 
program would be to simply require proof of testing (by an independent 
certified laboratory) as part of the licensing process. This is 
currently done in many states as a requirement for participation in 
high school athletics. NHTSA estimates the cost of having drug tests 
conducted using DOT/DHHS-approved procedures for collection, testing, 
review, and reporting would be $35 to $45 per test. These procedures 
require: (a) standardized collection steps that are used at over 10,000 
sites across the U.S.; (b) testing at any of the 69 DHHS-certified 
laboratories; and (c) review of positive results by qualified 
physicians.
    Fiscal year 1999 funds, not to exceed $250,000, would be used to 
provide a small number of planning grants to states wishing to examine 
the practical issues involved in implementing a testing program and to 
develop detailed implementation plans for such a program (e.g., what 
drugs to include, test procedures to use, who will conduct the tests, 
who will receive the results, etc.). NHTSA has been in contact with 
states that have expressed serious interest in receiving planning 
grants.
    Question. Were any funds expended in fiscal year 1998 to plan for a 
pre-licensure drug test program. If so, how much?
    Answer. No funds were expended in fiscal year 1998 to plan for a 
pre-licensure drug test program. A small amount of staff time was 
expended responding to congressional requests for information about 
this proposed program and to respond to state inquiries about the 
possibility and likelihood of funding being provided for a program of 
this type.
    Question. Please break out separately the expected costs for each 
of the new and on-going initiatives specified under the Youth, Drugs, 
and Driving Initiative.
    Answer.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year--
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       1998       1999
                                                      budget    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Youth, Drugs, and Driving.........................      1,400      2,000
    Law Enforcement Training......................        400  .........
    Prosecutor Training...........................        400  .........
    Judge Training................................        300        100
    Drug Prevention Program.......................        300        100
    Drug Testing Demos............................  .........        250
    Public Education and Outreach.................  .........        750
    Summit on Drugs and Driving...................  .........        300
    Research and Demo on state drugged driving      .........        500
     legislation..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What is NHTSA doing to improve the enforcement of drunk 
driving laws affecting youth?
    Answer. NHTSA has undertaken activities in four major areas: 
technical assistance materials, training, demonstration projects and 
promotion of innovative concepts.
    Manuals and video tapes have been developed to assist enforcement 
and alcohol beverage control agencies with strategies and program 
ideas. Youth DWI And Underage Enforcement was written by police 
officers to describe effective strategies in detecting and apprehending 
youthful offenders. Retail Oriented Best Practices for Underage 
Drinking Prevention was assembled by a committee of alcohol beverage 
control officials from throughout the country. Both publications have 
recently been distributed to enhance law enforcement efforts. The 
agency is planning a new round of training in youth enforcement 
techniques and adjudication concepts. The Youth DWI Enforcement 
Workshops, developed by IACP, is being revised to include additional 
zero tolerance enforcement information. The Alcohol Highway Safety 
Workshop For Juvenile Court Judges will be updated to include more 
information on drugged driving and will be delivered in approximately 
ten States by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 
As a result of five demonstration sites conducted in partnership with 
the Department of Justice, NHTSA will be publishing Strategies For 
Success: Combating Juvenile DUI. This document will encourage police 
executives and other criminal justice officials to develop a 
coordinated criminal justice system to deal with youthful drinking and 
impaired driving offenders. Innovative concepts such as Teen Courts are 
being promoted by NHTSA to find alternate methods of processing 
youthful offenders. Publications and training programs have resulted in 
an increase of over 300 new teen court programs in the past several 
years. Because of universal difficulties police have after arresting a 
juvenile, NHTSA is currently examining effective ``holdover'' 
facilities that temporarily detain youthful alcohol offenders. Training 
and technical assistance will be provided to assist police in this 
post-arrest phase of activities. Zero Tolerance projects have had a 
particular emphasis on enforcement, including a national satellite 
teleconference, a student/police collaboration demonstration project, 
and a national campaign emphasizing enforcement coupled with awareness.
    The agency will also be initiating a project in fiscal year 1999 to 
better measure compliance of youth alcohol and impaired driving laws.
    Question. How do NHTSA's fiscal year 1998 budget and the fiscal 
year 1999 budget request address that issue? Please break down specific 
activities and associated amounts.
    Answer. The following projects are underway or planned in fiscal 
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal     Fiscal
            Youth enforcement projects              year 1998  year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replicate Washington DC Model Underage Drinking           200        200
 Program..........................................
American Probation and Parole Association ``Teen    .........         50
 Courts''.........................................
National Zero Tolerance Campaign..................        200        250
Rural Enforcement of zero tolerance and alcohol           150  .........
 laws.............................................
Juvenile ``Holdover'' Project.....................        100  .........
Demo to Target High Fatal Crash States............        200        200
Training for Juvenile Court Judges................        300        100
Techniques for Measuring Compliance with Alcohol    .........        150
 Laws.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please specify the nature and total amount of all youth-
oriented activities for fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998 and planned 
for fiscal year 1999 separately.
    Answer. The information follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
             Project              --------------------------------------
                                       1997         1998         1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduated Licensing State Grants           100          175          225
 and Evaluation..................
Replicate Washington DC Model      ...........          200          200
 Underage Drinking Prog..........
American Probation and Parole              100  ...........           50
 Association ``Teen Courts''.....
American Trauma Society Juvenile           946  ...........  ...........
 Visitation Program..............
National Zero Tolerance Campaign/          200          200          250
 Scholastic......................
BACCHUS/SADD Zero Tolerance                 96  ...........  ...........
 Campaign........................
Peer Helpers Zero Tolerance                 93  ...........  ...........
 Teleconference..................
Rural Enforcement of zero                  150          150  ...........
 tolerance and alcohol laws......
Determine Effectiveness of Zero            150  ...........  ...........
 Tolerance Laws..................
MADD Training of Student                   118           30  ...........
 Activists.......................
Strides for Safety Campaign/                81           80  ...........
 National Safety Council.........
Juvenile ``Holdover'' Project....          100          100  ...........
National Organization for Youth             45          200          150
 Safety (NOYS) support...........
National Organization (NOYS)       ...........          150          250
 Project Support.................
NOYS Youth Summit................           69  ...........           75
Cross Age Peer Mentoring Program.           25  ...........  ...........
Nat'l Science Teachers Assoc.               50           75  ...........
 Traffic Safety Science Curr.....
Youth Sanctions Guide for                   75  ...........  ...........
 impaired driving offenses.......
Youth Urban Project..............           50           50  ...........
Evaluation of youth projects.....           25           25           25
Guidelines for age-appropriate             150  ...........  ...........
 safety education materials......
Develop strategies to increase              40           50  ...........
 safety belt use by youth........
Improve decision making skills of          257  ...........  ...........
 young novice drivers............
Community Compliance With ABC              150  ...........  ...........
 Laws............................
SADD National Conference Support            50           25           25
 (Nat'l Youth Campaign)..........
``Traffic Safety Box'' National             50           50           50
 Implementation..................
Reduce Impaired Driving Among              100           75          250
 College Students................
Matching Safety Strategies to               28  ...........  ...........
 Youth Characteristics...........
Determine Reasons for Reduced              100           40  ...........
 Youth DWI.......................
Bicycle Programs.................           80          100          120
Pedestrian Programs..............  ...........          125           75
Training for Juvenile Court        ...........          300          100
 Judges (Alcohol and Drugs)......
Youth Diversity Project..........           50  ...........  ...........
Zero Tolerance Education with      ...........          100          100
 NCAA............................
Techniques for Measuring           ...........  ...........          150
 Compliance with Alcohol Laws....
                                  --------------------------------------
      TOTAL......................        2,578        2,395        2,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How many States are now receiving grant funds to test and 
evaluate graduated licensing systems? What have been the results?
    Answer. Five States received grants to assist them in establishing 
and then evaluating graduated licensing systems--Alaska, Florida, North 
Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont. Only Florida and North Carolina have 
been successful in passing legislation creating graduated systems. They 
are currently conducting evaluations. In addition, contracts have been 
initiated in Michigan (University of Michigan) and Kentucky (University 
of Kentucky) to evaluate their graduated driver licensing systems.
    Evaluation results are expected from Florida later this year; from 
North Carolina and Michigan by June 2000, and from Kentucky by June 
2001.
    Question. What progress has been made in that area during the last 
three years? How does the fiscal year 1999 budget request and the 
fiscal year 1998 budget address that matter? Please indicate funding 
amounts.
    Answer. Nineteen States have passed legislation establishing or 
upgrading components of a graduated driver licensing system in the last 
three years (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, 
South Carolina, and Virginia). Many other States have introduced 
legislation during the last three years to establish or upgrade 
components of a graduated driver licensing system.
    With regard to funding, $175,000 and $225,000 were allocated in 
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, respectively, to evaluate the 
Michigan and Kentucky programs. The evaluations in North Carolina and 
Florida were initiated with fiscal year 1995 funds.
    Question. Please describe the changes made and performance measures 
associated with the youth program and the outcomes and outputs of any 
accomplishments since last year.
    Answer. NHTSA has developed a performance measure in partnership 
with Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD). The ``2000 X 2000 
Campaign'' has set a goal of 2,000 alcohol-related fatalities for ages 
15 through 20 by the year 2000. In 1996, these fatalities numbered 
2,315, a 5 percent increase from 1995.
    The NHTSA youth program continues to focus on three broad 
approaches to achieve reduced teenage fatalities: legislation, 
education and enforcement. Our legislative efforts are primarily 
focused on strengthening and implementing the zero tolerance laws, 
enacting graduated licensing laws and increasing compliance with the 
age 21 drinking laws. Numerous education efforts are underway, 
primarily in partnership with national organizations like MADD and SADD 
and the members of National Organizations For Youth Safety (NOYS). 
Enforcement efforts focus on the development of how-to materials and 
demonstration programs with law enforcement organizations.
    Currently, 49 States and the District of Columbia have zero 
tolerance laws. NHTSA estimates that age 21 laws saved 846 lives in 
1996 alone. In 1997, 6 States passed new laws revising their licensing 
statutes that pertain to teen drivers. Currently, there are 15 States 
that require multiple levels of licensing for young novice drivers. 
Seventeen States have restricted nighttime driving hours for teen 
drivers. Numerous products have resulted from NHTSA funded efforts, the 
latest being a national satellite teleconference on Zero Tolerance, 
which was fed to approximately 400 down-link sites and 20 public 
service TV stations.
    Question. The conferees provided $1,400,000 to bolster training and 
education in law enforcement, prosecutors and judges dealing with 
detection, arrests, and punishment of young alcohol and drug offenders, 
and the sanctioning of alcohol and drug offenders. Please describe the 
progress made in each of these areas.
    Answer. The plan for addressing these concerns focuses on training 
and education for law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and school 
officials. For law enforcement, the Youth Enforcement Workshop will be 
revised to expand its focus to alcohol and other drugs and will to 
include topics such as zero tolerance, impact of drug use by youth, and 
drug research.
    For prosecutors and patrol officers, a workshop entitled Protecting 
Lives, Saving Futures is being developed to provide guidance on the 
effective and efficient use of existing and newly enacted laws, 
enforcement techniques and technology to reduce alcohol and other drug 
use by youth.
    For judges that hear cases involving youthful drug, alcohol, and 
other impaired driving offenses, an educational program is being 
developed which focuses on the impact that alcohol and other drugs have 
on both crime and traffic safety, as well as judges' impact on the 
enforcement process and dispositional alternatives for youthful 
offenders. NHTSA anticipates an award to the National Council of 
Juvenile and Family Court Judges by August 1998.
    For school administrators, teachers, coaches, counselors, and 
nurses an education and training program is being developed to help 
recognize the signs and symptoms of students under the influence of 
alcohol and other drugs. This program is designed to be presented by 
law enforcement officers.
    Question. What specific contracts have been signed to implement 
that directive?
    Answer. No contracts have been signed yet. We anticipate the 
following awards to be made by the end of fiscal year 1998:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Organization                              Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement--Youth Enforcement    International Association of Chiefs of     July 1998.
 Workshop.                             Police.
Prosecutors--Protecting Lives,        National Traffic Law Center..............  September 1998.
 Saving Futures Workshop.
Judges--Workshop and training for     National Council of Juvenile Court Judges  August 1998.
 juvenile court judges.
Detecting and Treating Alcohol and    International Association of Chiefs of     July 1998.
 Other Drugs Before It Becomes a       Police.
 Problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How much will be spent on alcohol issues and how much on 
drug-related concerns?
    Answer. Funding levels cannot be easily differentiated. All four 
projects to be undertaken in the youth, drugs and driving initiative 
focus on alcohol and other drugs and on training for a variety of 
audiences (law enforcement, prosecutors, etc.). The training will cover 
both alcohol and other drug issues as they relate to prevention, 
detection, prosecution, adjudication, and treatment.
    Question. The conferees directed NHTSA to consider developing model 
policies for youth enforcement treatment and sentencing and then 
conduct a demonstration using this model. Please describe the progress 
made in that area. What specific contracts have been issued to 
implement the revised project?
    Answer. NHTSA has a number of initiatives underway to address model 
enforcement and sentencing policies and practices. This year the agency 
published two documents addressing enforcement issues: Youth DWI and 
Underage Enforcement and Best Practices For Retail Oriented Underage 
Drinking Prevention.
    A demonstration grant to test a model approach to enforcing 
underage sale is underway with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. A 
five-site demonstration program was conducted with the Department of 
Justice to develop model policies and practices within the enforcement 
community. In addition, a publication is now under development which 
describes model approaches for dealing with youth issues within the 
criminal. It is entitled Strategies For Success--Combating Juvenile 
DWI.
    Sentencing and treatment issues are being addressed through an 
interagency agreement with the National Institute on Alcoholism and 
Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA). This project will produce a sentencing guide for 
judges and prosecutors who deal with youth alcohol issues.
    Finally, the agency will award a fiscal year 1998 grant to the 
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges to conduct a 
series of State workshops for judges on adjudicating and sentencing 
youthful alcohol and drug offenders.
                  national occupant protection program
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated 
and the amount actually appropriated for each of the five subprograms 
of the National Occupant Protection Program in fiscal years 1996, 1997, 
and 1998.
    Answer. See table below.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year 1996      Fiscal year 1997      Fiscal year 1998
                    Program                    -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Request     Approp    Request     Approp    Request     Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI&E..........................................      2,414      2,314      2,364      2,360      2,263      2,263
Belt Law......................................      1,904      1,886      1,674      1,670      1,594      1,594
Target Pop....................................      1,635      1,253      1,637      1,498      1,540      1,540
Eval & Tech...................................        447        439        538        537        498        498
Patterns......................................      1,600        952        745        744        715        715
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table for each of the five subprograms 
in the National Occupant Protection Program, showing how all the funds 
requested for fiscal year 1999 are to be spent, and please include in 
that table a comparison with the amount provided for comparable 
activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please further 
justify the need for the requested increases over the fiscal year 1998 
appropriation.
    Answer. The tables follow:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1998                        Amount                       1999                        Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SUBPROGRAM
 
Initiate social marketing approach to           $90,000  Conduct social marketing research, develop     $500,000
 achieving goals and objectives in the                    messages, focus test, plan and implement
 Buckle Up America program.                               media events, develop partnerships, and
                                                          support partners for the Buckle Up America
                                                          program.
National Safety Belt Media Campaign under a     550,000  National Safety Belt Media Campaign under a     600,000
 cooperative agreement with The Advertising               cooperative agreement with The Advertising
 Council.                                                 Council.
Develop and produce child passenger safety      700,000  Develop and produce educational, media, and     911,000
 and safety belt educational, promotional,                promotional materials, with special
 and media materials.                                     emphasis on Hispanic, African American,
                                                          Asian American, and Native American
                                                          audiences.
Produce and distribute two Campaign Safe &      490,000  Develop, produce and distribute the Campaign    375,000
 Sober Planners: (1) Occupant Protection and              Safe & Sober Seasonal Planners for Occupant
 (2) Youth and Generation X.                              Protection.
Maintain database for communicating with         50,000  Increase technical capability and maintain      100,000
 partners in the Buckle Up America program.               database for communicating with thousands
                                                          of partners in the Buckle Up America
                                                          program.
Buckle Up America public information and        383,000  Buckle Up America public information and        425,000
 education activities of the NHTSA Regional               education activities of the NHTSA Regional
 Offices.                                                 Offices.
 
       BELT LAW COMPLIANCE SUBPROGRAM
 
Complete final year funding of four-year      1,149,000  Support enforcement-related activities of     1,130,000
 demonstration grant program. These funds                 states targeted for intensive outreach
 have assisted 19 states in conducting                    efforts following June 1998 Buckle Up
 statewide enforcement and education                      America Leadership Conference, and
 programs to increase seat belt and child                 communicate this experience to all states
 safety seat use.                                         through law enforcement organizations.
Establish law enforcement liaison officers      255,000  Continue the law enforcement liaison officer    300,000
 at the agency regional level to promote                  program and summits. Experience from the 19-
 occupant protection training programs,                   state grant demonstrations, ``Operation
 provide technical assistance and organize                ABC'' and the June 1998 Buckle Up America
 regional summits for law enforcement                     Leadership Conference will be promoted
 agencies to support Buckle Up America.                   within these and other states.
Develop updated material on the experience    .........  Provide information extensively to national,    300,000
 of states which have upgraded their seat                 state and local organizations interested in
 belt use laws from secondary to primary                  pursuing improved state occupant protection
 enforcement (experience from California,                 legislation, and measure use rates and
 Louisiana and Georgia law changes).                      public acceptance of new primary law
                                                          experience in Oklahoma, Indiana and other
                                                          new primary enforcement law states.
Develop and update training materials for       140,000  Train greater numbers of officer-instructors    400,000
 law enforcement officer and fire and rescue              in the states to educate patrol officers on
 staff training in child passenger safety.                child passenger safety and belt law
 Encourage the law enforcement community to               enforcement issues. The involvement of
 enforce belt and child safety seat use                   professional law enforcement organizations
 laws, providing this information through                 will increase program awareness and
 professional law enforcement programs.                   participation among more communities.
Continue data base development and pilot         50,000  Provide CD-ROM as a resource to child           250,000
 test CD-ROM product as a tool to assist                  passenger safety technicians to support
 child passenger safety technicians in                    better advice to parents and other care
 providing selection, use and compatibility               givers. Develop and market a version for
 information about child safety seats to                  marketplace use by parents, care givers and
 parents and other care givers at the                     dealers to support compliance and correct
 community program level.                                 usage at the community program level.
 
        TARGET POPULATIONS SUBPROGRAM
 
Conference Exhibits. Exhibit at national        100,000  Exhibit at 50 percent more national             150,000
 conferences to solicit participation in the              conferences to solicit greater
 Buckle Up America program.                               participation in the Buckle Up America
                                                          program, especially among minority
                                                          populations.
Minority Outreach. Work with and support        250,000  Conduct a diversity summit to enroll            600,000
 national minority organizations to develop               additional groups representing diverse
 culturally-relevant materials for                        organizations into the Buckle Up America
 distribution through minority organizations              campaign; develop ethnically and culturally-
                                                          relevant public education materials
                                                          targeting minority audiences on the
                                                          importance of seat belts and child safety
                                                          seats; and discuss the role of law
                                                          enforcement in raising seat belt and child
                                                          safety seat use.
Medical/Public Health Outreach. Develop         300,000  Increase the number of medical and public       500,000
 targeted toolkit for medical and health                  health organizations implementing occupant
 care partners to enhance their educational               protection activities; effectively involve
 efforts in promoting seat belt and child                 the medical/public health communities in
 seat use.                                                providing community leadership to support
                                                          Buckle Up America.
Elected Officials Outreach. Develop             300,000  Increase outreach to elected officials          400,000
 materials suitable for elected officials,                through national organizations; effectively
 and encourage participation in occupant                  involve organizations (see examples in
 protection activities. Work with an support              fiscal year 1998 column) in occupant
 national organizations such as U.S. Conf.                protection activities, based on materials
 of Mayors and Nat'l. Assn. Of Prosecutor                 developed in fiscal year 1998.
 Coordinators.
Educational Organizations Outreach. Work        140,000  Extend outreach to educational                  350,000
 with and support national educational                    organizations, involving them in the
 organizations to develop and distribute                  development and distribution of educational
 educational materials promoting seat belt                materials (K-12) focusing on the importance
 use.                                                     of occupant protection.
Business and Federal Agency Outreach. Expand    250,000  Mobilize federal agencies in support of the     400,000
 partnerships with business and federal                   President's Initiative to Increase Seat
 agencies to encourage implementation of                  Belt Use. Increase partnerships with the
 seat belt policies among employees.                      business community, focusing on activities
                                                          they can implement in support of the Buckle
                                                          Up America campaign.
Youth Organization Outreach. Develop and        100,000  Increase the number of youth organizations      300,000
 distribute occupant protection materials                 served, and provide peer-to-peer mentoring
 targeting young people, through a national               to increase seat belt use through a
 youth champion.                                          national youth summit.
Develop a national Recognition and Awards       100,000  Implement a Recognition and Awards Program      350,000
 Program for the Buckle Up America Campaign.              for the Buckle Up America Campaign.
 
EVALUATION AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING SUBPROGRAM
 
Respond to requests for occupant protection     200,000  Respond to requests for occupant protection     400,000
 materials from national, state, and local                materials. The demand for traffic safety
 organizations plus individuals who are                   educational materials has been increasing
 conducting traffic safety programs. On                   every year at an accelerated rate. With the
 average, the Traffic Safety Resource Center              initiation of the air bag safety program
 estimates that it is currently filling over              and Buckle Up America, this program is
 3,000 orders per month just for occupant                 placing even greater demands on the
 protection materials.                                    services that the Resource Center must
                                                          provide.
Provide technical assistance to the states.     198,000  Continue activities such as were conducted      221,000
 Training, demonstration grants,                          in fiscal year 1998, plus increase
 observational belt use surveys.                          technical assistance for child passenger
                                                          safety programs and training.
The Presidential Initiative to Increase Seat  .........  The Presidential Initiative to Increase Seat     50,000
 Belt Use Nationwide semi-annual progress                 Belt Use Nationwide semi-annual progress
 report for fiscal year 1998 will not                     reports. Collecting and analyzing data from
 involve data collection from partners.                   partners participating in Buckle Up America
 Reports written by NHTSA staff.                          campaign, and writing reports.
Maintain the Grant Tracking System to assist    100,000  Continue activities such as were conducted      100,000
 in the evaluation of the 402 State and                   in fiscal year 1998.
 Community Grant Program. Publish quarterly
 Traffic Safety Digests for sharing
 successful 402 projects with the all of the
 State Highway Safety Offices and Community
 Traffic Safety Programs/Safe Communities.
 
  ``PATTERNS FOR LIFE''--CHILD SAFETY SEATS
                 SUBPROGRAM
 
Conduct and manage coalition events and          85,000  Continue activities such as were conducted       85,000
 partnerships lists. Develop and coordinate               in fiscal year 1998.
 information and technical assistance
 between members of the coalition and
 facilitate member sponsored media and
 promotion activities.
Materials Development--Coordinate the           285,000  Materials Development--Continue activities      285,000
 development, updating, and revision of                   such as were conducted in fiscal year 1998.
 training materials, public awareness and                 This year's efforts will add the
 information, and promotional items on child              development of materials targeted for
 passenger, bicycle, pedestrian, and school               special populations.
 bus safety.
Training Development--Support workshops,        175,000  Training Development--Continue activities       175,000
 training and other educational activities                such as were conducted in fiscal year 1998,
 to enhance technical training programs.                  but fiscal year 1999 efforts will also
 Provide technical assistance to states                   include working with select organizations
 interested in educating opinion leaders on               to develop additional training on child
 child passenger safety issues, effective                 transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle
 communication, and coalition building.                   issues.
Training Delivery--Work with national           105,000  Training Delivery--Continue activities such     105,000
 organizations to coordinate delivery of                  as were conducted in fiscal year 1998.
 training workshops to state and local
 affiliates. Facilitate training activities
 coordination.
Grassroots Educational Support--Develop          35,000  (Completed).................................  .........
 technical assistance for states interested
 in upgrading child passenger safety
 legislation and improving media advocacy
 skills for state and local program
 personnel.
Support Air Bag Safety Campaign--develop         30,000  (Completed).................................  .........
 approaches to educate the public about the
 risks of air bag injury to unrestrained and
 improperly restrained children, the need
 for effective child passenger safety law
 enforcement, and the benefits of effective
 child passenger safety laws.
                                              .........  Child Transportation Guidelines--Develop and     65,000
                                                          coordinate age-appropriate guidelines on
                                                          pedestrian, bicycle, and school bus safety
                                                          skills for children (ages 0-14), and
                                                          implement the effort.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justifications For Increases:
    The Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Use Nationwide 
set extremely ambitious goals of 85 percent seat belt use by Year 2000 
and 90 percent by 2005. Achieving safety belt use rates of this 
magnitude requires strong safety belt and child passenger safety laws 
that are consistently enforced, enlightened and educated community 
leaders and opinion makers who can influence and shape the public's 
attitudes toward safety and health issues, and a public which strongly 
agrees that ``unbuckled is unacceptable.'' Specific subprogram 
justifications follow:
    Public Information and Education Subprogram.--The increased funding 
will allow the agency to (1) develop culturally-relevant child 
passenger safety and safety belt educational and training materials 
into Spanish and Asiatic languages; (2) hire a public relations/social 
marketing firm to support the entire Buckle Up America effort; (3) 
increase the capability and maintain a database management system for 
communicating with the agency's Buckle Up America partners; and (4) 
produce sufficient quantities of print and audio-visual educational and 
training materials to meet the exponentially increasing demand for 
materials created by the Buckle Up America initiative. The savings 
realized from reducing the number of Campaign Safe & Sober planners 
from four a year to three will be somewhat offset by the need to 
contract out more of the developmental work that previously was 
performed in-house.
    Belt Law Compliance Subprogram.--The additional resources are 
needed to implement the more intense program activity and new 
initiatives designed to achieve the challenging belt use and child 
passenger fatality reduction goals established at the request of the 
President for the years 2000 and 2005. The 1998 budget request did not 
reflect the level of resources needed to operationally implement this 
initiative, which was in the planning process from January through 
September 1997. The fiscal year 1999 budget request is the first we 
have proposed which reflects the resources needed to fully support the 
annual costs of the campaign. This campaign is a comprehensive effort 
which targets (1) the development of new and more focused public-
private partnerships to promote the message for increased use to the 
public, (2) the enactment of stronger state occupant protection use 
laws, (3) high visibility enforcement of those laws, and (4) effective 
public education. While the belt law compliance subprogram is not the 
only funding component for the Campaign, the activities it supports are 
crucial to its operation and success, and a large increase in funding 
level is required over the fiscal year 1998 request.
    Target Populations Subprogram.--The objective of this subprogram is 
to work through national organizations to enlighten and educate 
community leaders and opinion makers, make them ``champions'' of safety 
belt and child safety seat use, and create a public attitude that 
``unbuckled is unacceptable.'' This is a massive undertaking and 
requires the assistance and cooperation of hundreds of national 
organizations, and their state and local affiliates to have a 
noticeable impact. The increase will allow the agency to: (1) promote 
Buckle Up America at 35 additional national conferences of minority 
organizations; (2) increase the number and types of national 
organizations (especially minority, medical and health, and youth 
organizations) that the agency can support with mini-grants, training, 
materials, and technical assistance; (3) identify, recruit and support 
individuals to serve as national spokespersons for Buckle Up America; 
and (4) establish a Rewards and Recognition program to motivate 
organizations and individuals to participate in Buckle Up America.
    Evaluation and Technology Sharing Subprogram.--The demand for 
traffic safety educational materials, from national, state, and local 
organizations plus individuals who are conducting traffic safety 
programs, has been increasing every year at an accelerated rate. 
Occupant protection materials have always represented the largest share 
of these orders. Now, with the initiation of the Air Bag Safety Program 
and Buckle Up America, there are even more requests resulting from the 
need to provide materials to the hundreds of national organization 
partners who are being recruited to support Buckle Up America. The 
logistical support for shipping displays and materials to national 
conferences where NHTSA promotes its traffic safety programs has 
likewise increased from about 24 in 1996, to over 50 in 1998, and 75 in 
1999. BUA also requires a semi-annual progress report on meeting the 
national goals by Year 2000. $50,000 of the requested increase is to 
pay for data collection from the national partners who will be 
conducting activities in support of Buckle Up America, analysis of that 
data, and writing the reports to Congress. The balance is to provide 
additional technical assistance to the states' child passenger safety 
(CPS) programs and training courses. The demand for CPS training is 
growing at an exponential rate and NHTSA is responding.
    ``Patterns for Life''--Child Safety Seats Subprogram.--There is no 
increase requested for fiscal year 1999 from the level funded in fiscal 
year 1998.
    Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of how the $9.83 
million requested for the National Occupant Protection program will be 
allocated.
    Answer. A detailed breakdown follows:

PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SUBPROGRAM:
    Conduct social marketing research, develop messages, focus 
      test, plan and implement media events, develop 
      partnerships, and support partners for Buckle Up America  $500,000
    National Safety Belt Media Campaign under a cooperative 
      agreement with The Advertising Council..................   600,000
    Develop and produce educational, media, and promotional 
      materials, with emphasis on Hispanic, African American, 
      Native American and Asian American audiences............   911,000
    Develop, produce and distribute the Campaign Safe & Sober 
      Seasonal Planners for Occupant Protection...............   375,000
    Increase technical capability and maintain database for 
      communicating with thousands of partners in the Buckle 
      Up America pro- 
      gram....................................................   100,000
    Buckle Up America public information and education 
      activities of the NHTSA Regional Offices................   425,000
BELT LAW COMPLIANCE SUBPROGRAM:
    Support enforcement-related activities of states targeted 
      for intensive outreach efforts following June 1998 
      Buckle Up America Leadership Conference, and communicate 
      this experience to all states through law enforcement 
      organizations........................................... 1,130,000
    Continue the law enforcement liaison officer program and 
      regional summits. Experience from the 19-state grant 
      demonstrations, Operation ABC and the June 1998 Buckle 
      Up America Leadership Conference will be promoted within 
      these and other states..................................   300,000
    Provide information extensively to national, state and 
      local organizations interested in pursuing improved 
      state occupant protection legislation, and measure use 
      rates and public acceptance of new primary law 
      experience in Oklahoma, Indiana and other new primary 
      enforcement law states..................................   300,000
    Train greater numbers of officer-instructors in the states 
      to educate patrol officers on child passenger safety and 
      belt law enforcement issues. The involvement of 
      professional law enforcement organizations will increase 
      program awareness and participation among more 
      communities.............................................   400,000
    Provide CD-ROM as a resource to child passenger safety 
      technicians to support better advice to parents and 
      other care givers. Develop and market a version for 
      marketplace use by parents, care givers and dealers to 
      support compliance and correct usage at the community 
      program level...........................................   250,000
TARGET POPULATIONS SUBPROGRAM:
    Conference Exhibits. Exhibit at 50 percent more national 
      conferences to solicit greater participation in Buckle 
      Up America, especially among minority populations.......   150,000
    Minority Outreach. Conduct a diversity summit to enroll 
      additional groups representing diverse organizations 
      into the Buckle Up America campaign; partner with 
      diverse groups to address the issue of harassment in 
      respect to the enforcement of seat belt laws; and 
      develop ethnically and culturally-relevant materials 
      targeting minority audiences on the importance of seat 
      belts and child safety seats............................   600,000
    Medical/Public Health Outreach. Increase the number of 
      medical and public health organizations implementing 
      occupant protection activities, and effectively involve 
      them in community leadership to support Buckle Up 
      America.................................................   500,000
    Elected Officials Outreach. Increase outreach to elected 
      officials through national organizations; effectively 
      involve organizations such as the U.S. Conference of 
      Mayor and the National Association of Prosecutor 
      Coordinators in occupant protection activities, based on 
      materials developed in fiscal year 1998.................   400,000
    Educational Organizations Outreach. Extend outreach to 
      educational organizations, involving them in the 
      development and distribution of educational materials 
      (K-12) focusing on the importance of occupant protection   350,000
    Business and Federal Agency Outreach. Mobilize federal 
      agencies in support of the President's Initiative to 
      Increase Seat Belt Use. Increase partnerships with the 
      business community, focusing on activities they can 
      implement in support of the Buckle Up America campaign..   400,000
    Youth Organization Outreach. Increase the number of youth 
      organizations served, and provide peer mentoring to 
      increase seat belt use through a national youth summit..   300,000
    Implement a Recognition and Awards Program for the Buckle 
      Up America Campaign.....................................   350,000
EVALUATION AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING SUBPROGRAM:
    Responding to state, national organization and other 
      requests for occupant protection materials to support 
      their efforts in Buckle Up America......................   400,000
    Providing technical assistance to the states. Training, 
      demonstration grants, observational belt use surveys, 
      and technical assistance for CPS programs and training..   221,000
    Semi-annual progress reports on the Presidential 
      Initiative to Increase Seat Belt Use Nationwide--
      collecting and analyzing data from participating 
      partners................................................    50,000
    Maintaining a grant tracking system to assist in the 
      evaluation of the 402 State and Community Grant Program, 
      and publication of the quarterly Traffic Safety Digests 
      for sharing successful 402 projects with all of the 
      State Highway Safety Offices and Community Traffic 
      Safety Programs/Safe Communities........................   100,000
``PATTERNS FOR LIFE''--CHILD SAFETY SEATS SUBPROGRAM:
    Continue efforts in managing coalition events and 
      partnerships lists. Maintain information and technical 
      assistance between members of the coalition and 
      facilitate media and promotional activities.............    85,000
    Expand efforts with the production and revision of 
      training materials, public awareness and information, 
      and promotional items on child transportation, bike and 
      pedestrian safety. This year's efforts will add 
      materials targeted for special populations..............   285,000
    Conduct and promote workshops, training sessions and other 
      educational activities to enhance technical and advocacy 
      programs. Provide technical assistance to states 
      interested in educating opinion leaders on child 
      passenger safety issues, effective communication, and 
      coalition building. This year's efforts include working 
      with select organizations to develop additional training 
      on child transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle issues.   175,000
    Continue instructor staff development and coordinate 
      delivery of training workshops to state and local 
      affiliates. Continue to coordinate training activities..   105,000
    Coordinate a team to create developmental age-appropriate 
      guidelines on pedestrian, bicycle, and school bus safety 
      skills for children (ages 0-14). Produce and implement 
      the new program 
      effort..................................................    65,000

    Question. What are the objectives and expected funding activities 
for each of the activities listed on page HS-38 of the fiscal year 1999 
Budget Estimate.
    Answer. The activities listed in HS-38 were provided to highlight, 
by example, some of the activities that the agency planned to undertake 
as part of the overall Presidential Initiative to Increase Seat Belt 
Use Nationwide. They were not meant to constitute a total list of the 
entire Occupant Protection or Buckle Up America (BUA) programs. The 
objectives of the activities and estimated dollars allocated can be 
summarized as follows:
Objective: National Outreach and Building Partnerships ($290,000)
    Redefine the National public campaign to meet the goals as set in 
the Presidential Initiative to Increase Seat Belt Use Nationwide. 
Develop a Network of ``Champions'' to increase support for the 
Presidential Seat Belt Initiative.
    Conduct a National Diversity Summit to enlist support for traffic 
safety initiatives from ethnically and culturally diverse populations.
    Reach out to national associations representing medical and health 
professionals, youth, businesses, government officials, ethnically and 
culturally diverse populations and others to promote safety belt 
messages to their members, constituents, and the public.
    Conduct outreach activities to support and enable state and local 
infrastructures to provide information about child passenger protection 
and training activities. Increase the number of local child passenger 
protection experts providing technical assistance to national, state 
and local health and medical, intergovernmental, and civic groups.
Objective: Technical Assistance to States and Communities ($610,000)
    Promote intensive statewide publicity and enforcement programs in 
as many states as possible, offering demonstration grants to 8-10 
states to assist them in developing and coordinating such programs.
    Provide technical assistance to States to improve their 
observational belt use surveys.
    Promote ``best practices'' in states and local communities through 
NHTSA's regional offices.
    Provide state and local training in technical skills, program 
advocacy and project management.
    Provide regional assistance for the development of materials and 
program implementation.
    Develop regional peer-to-peer technical assistance capabilities.
    Develop regional technical transfer capabilities to improve 
occupant protection countermeasures.
    Continue to promote occupant protection initiatives through 
regional public information and education campaigns and Safe 
Communities programs.
                          belt law compliance
    Question. Please provide an empirical basis justifying the need for 
the $2.38 million requested for the Belt Law Compliance program in 
fiscal year 1999. Please specify amounts to be associated with specific 
activities.
    Answer. Failure to buckle up contributes to more fatalities than 
any other single traffic safety-related behavior. And, fatalities are 
only the tip of the iceberg, with almost four million injuries 
documented in police-reported crashes each year. A critical element to 
achieving increased seat belt and child safety seat use and reducing 
motor vehicle related deaths and injuries is the continued 
implementation of high-visibility enforcement activities in as many 
states and communities as possible.
    Experience shows that high-visibility enforcement works to increase 
occupant protection use because, with many part-time and non-belt 
users, the fear of citation and fine adds additional persuasive weight 
to their fear of being injured or killed in a crash. For others in 
these groups who unrealistically refuse to accept that they are ever at 
any risk of being injured or killed in a crash, the heightened 
possibility of citation and fine provides a motivation that is 
otherwise lacking. During the past few years when very few additional 
belt use laws were enacted and no widespread enforcement efforts were 
undertaken, the national seat belt use rate remained essentially 
unchanged. In those states that already had enacted primary enforcement 
seat belt legislation, and where there was a greater perceived 
potential for receiving a citation for belt non-use, belt usage was 
about 15 percentage points higher than in the states with secondary 
enforcement provisions. In those states that have recently adopted 
primary enforcement seat belt legislation, and in those communities 
that have implemented sequential waves of high-visibility belt law 
enforcement, seat belt use rates have increased dramatically, in the 
range of 12 to 15 percentage points.
    In order to reach the national seat belt and child passenger safety 
goals, the agency proposes the following activities and funding levels 
for its Belt Law Compliance Subprogram in fiscal year 1999:
  --Support enforcement-related activities of states targeted for 
        intensive outreach efforts following the conduct of a June 1998 
        Buckle Up America Leadership Conference, and communicate the 
        results of this experience to all states through law 
        enforcement organizations. ($1,130,000)
  --Continue the law enforcement liaison officer program. Experience 
        from the 19-state sTEP demonstration programs and the June 1998 
        Buckle Up America Leadership Conference will be promoted to all 
        states via these liaison officers. ($300,000)
  --Provide information to national, state and local organizations to 
        support improved state occupant protection legislation; measure 
        use rates and public acceptance of new primary law experience 
        in Oklahoma, Indiana and other new primary enforcement law 
        states. ($300,000)
  --Train large numbers of officer-instructors in the states to educate 
        patrol officers on child passenger safety and belt law 
        enforcement issues. The support and involvement of major 
        professional law enforcement organizations will increase the 
        potential for this effort to increase program awareness and 
        participation among police officers in thousands of 
        communities. ($400,000)
  --Provide a CD-ROM resource to child passenger safety technicians to 
        provide accurate and up-to-date advice to parents and other 
        care givers. Develop and market a version of this CD-ROM for 
        use by parents, care givers and dealers to support compliance 
        and correct usage at the community program level. ($250,000)
                           target populations
    Question. Please provide an empirical basis justifying the need for 
the $3.05 million requested for the Target Populations program in 
fiscal year 1999. Please specify amounts to be allocated for specific 
activities.
    Answer. An important element of increasing seat belt and child 
safety seat use is the development and use of strategic partnerships to 
educate the motoring public on their safety benefits. During the past 
three years, the Agency has expanded its outreach targeting specific 
national organizations.
    These partnerships result in the development and distribution of 
seat belt materials focusing on the specific needs of the membership, 
technical and advocacy training of members, and the convening of 
workgroups to enhance communications and coordination across 
organizations. Working with our partners, for example, the Agency has 
developed occupant protection tool kits designed for physicians for use 
in speaking with their patients regarding the injury prevention 
benefits of seat belts; model seat belt policies for use by business 
and industry in implementing seat belt policies for their employees; 
training programs for child care providers in the proper installation 
of child safety seats.
    Increasing our outreach to national organizations will enable the 
agency to reach individuals in the community, through their physicians 
and nurses, child care providers, employers, service organizations, 
governing bodies, and others, all with the same message: ``Buckle Up 
America, there's just too much to lose''. This, combined with highly 
visible enforcement efforts and enhanced legislation, will be essential 
to move us to our goal of 85 percent belt use by the year 2000.
    The Agency proposed the following activities and funding levels for 
its Target Population subprogram in fiscal year 1999:
  --Increase the number of exhibits at national conferences featuring 
        the Buckle Up America campaign by 50 percent. ($150,000)
  --Conduct a diversity summit to mobilize diverse organizations into 
        the Buckle Up America campaign; develop ethnically- and 
        culturally-specific materials; partner with diverse groups to 
        address the issue of potential police harassment generated by 
        primary seat belt laws. ($600,000)
  --Mobilize the medical/public health organizations in support of the 
        Buckle Up America campaign, including their involvement in 
        providing community leadership. ($500,000)
  --Increase outreach to elected officials in support of the Buckle Up 
        America campaign, including a ``mayor's challenge'' for 
        increased seat belt use. (400,000)
  --Increase educational organization outreach in support of seat belt 
        use, to include the development of curricula designed for 
        middle school, using traffic safety examples and exercises to 
        augment science classes. ($350,000)
  --Expand partnerships with business and industry and with other 
        federal agencies promoting seat belt policies for their 
        employees, and working as community leaders supporting visible 
        enforcement of seat belt laws. ($400,000)
  --Mobilize youth organizations to focus on the benefits of seat belt 
        use; conduct a summit to teach young people leadership skills 
        and peer-to-peer mentoring skills to increase youth activities 
        at the local level in support of the Buckle Up America 
        campaign. ($300,000)
  --Implement a recognition and reward program for national 
        organizations and other partners who have exhibited 
        extraordinary efforts in supporting the campaign, and whose 
        work has resulted in increases in seat belt and child seat use. 
        ($350,000)
                      occupant protection research
    Question. In extensive detail, please further justify the $1.08 
million increase for the Occupant Protection Research.
    Answer. The $1.08 million figure refers to the total requested 
research budget in occupant protection. This is a $306,000 increase 
over the fiscal year 1998 research budget of $774,000. Increased 
funding in the occupant protection area is requested for fiscal year 
1999 in order to fund research to support implementation of the Buckle 
Up America campaign. Fiscal year 1999 funding will be directed towards 
providing a solid research, evaluation and data foundation for the 
campaign. This will include monitoring of public awareness and 
attitudes of various intervention approaches and observational surveys 
to track safety belt and child seat use at various stages of the 
program. In addition, efforts will be initiated to develop and test 
interventions, such as enforcement programs, positive incentives, and 
public information and education programs.
                    public information and education
    Question. Please describe all agency activities related to child 
safety seat use and the subprogram from which those activities are 
funded. Please specify fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 1998 amounts 
associated with major activity categories.
    Answer. A table of agency activities, by subprogram area and fiscal 
year, follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1998                        Amount                       1999                        Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SUBPROGRAM
 
Develop, produce, and distribute child         $300,000  Develop, produce and distribute educational,   $500,000
 passenger safety educational, promotional,               media, and promotional materials, with
 and media materials.                                     special emphasis on Hispanic, African
                                                          American, and Asian American audiences.
Develop, produce and distribute a Campaign      245,000  Develop, produce, and distribute a Campaign     250,000
 Safe and Sober Quarterly Planner focusing                Safe and Sober Seasonal Planner focusing on
 on occupant protection, including child                  occupant protection and child safety seats.
 safety seats.
 
       BELT LAW COMPLIANCE SUBPROGRAM
 
Complete final year funding of four-year        383,000  Support enforcement-related activities of       375,000
 education and enforcement demonstration                  child seat laws in states targeted for
 grant programs.                                          intensive outreach efforts.
Establish law enforcement liaison officers       75,000  Continue the law enforcement liaison officer    100,000
 at the agency regional level to promote                  program and summits. Promote best practices
 child seat training, provide technical                   from the fiscal year 1998 program, and
 assistance to the states, and conduct                    results from the Buckle Up America
 summits for law enforcement agencies to                  Leadership Conference in targeted states.
 support the goals of Buckle Up America.
Develop and update training materials for       140,000  Train additional officer-instructors in the     300,000
 law enforcement and fire and rescue staff                states to educate patrol officers on child
 in child passenger safety. Encourage the                 passenger safety enforcement issues.
 law enforcement community to enforce belt
 and child seat use laws.
Continue data base development and pilot         50,000  Provide CD-ROM as a resource to child           250,000
 test CD-ROM product as a tool to assist                  passenger safety technicians to support
 child passenger safety technicians in                    better advice to parents and other care
 providing selection, use and compatibility               givers. Develop and market a version for
 information about child safety seats.                    marketplace use by parents and others to
                                                          support compliance and correct usage at the
                                                          community program level.
 
        TARGET POPULATIONS SUBPROGRAM
 
Exhibit at national conferences promoting        25,000  Exhibit at national conferences to solicit       75,000
 child seat initiatives through the Buckle                greater participation in the child
 Up America program.                                      passenger safety aspects of the Buckle Up
                                                          America program, especially among minority
                                                          populations.
Minority Outreach. Partner with minority        100,000  Expand partnerships with organizations          200,000
 organizations to develop culturally-                     representing minority populations; expand
 relevant materials for distribution through              production of culturally-relevant materials
 minority organizations.                                  for distribution through minority
                                                          organizations; enlist additional support
                                                          from minority organizations in support of
                                                          child seat use.
Medical/Public Health Outreach. Increase        150,000  Increase the number of medical and public       300,000
 outreach to medical/public health partners.              health organizations implementing child
 Develop toolkit targeted for medical and                 seat activities; expand production of
 health care partners to enhance their                    materials targeted at the health profession
 educational efforts in promoting child seat              for distribution to their patients
 use.                                                     regarding the safety benefits and proper
                                                          use of child seats.
Elected Officials Outreach. Develop and          75,000  Increase outreach to elected officials          150,000
 distribute materials focusing on the safety              through national organizations; effectively
 benefits of child seats and the highly                   involving them in the Buckle Up America
 visible enforcement of child seat laws.                  program through highly visible enforcement
                                                          of child seat laws and providing
                                                          information regarding gaps in legislation
                                                          covering children.
National Recognition and Awards Program for      25,000  Implement national Awards Program,              100,000
 Buckle Up America Program recognizing                    recognizing national organizations, states,
 programs exhibiting increases in child seat              and communities that increase child seat
 use.                                                     use and decreases in childhood fatalities.
 
EVALUATION AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING SUBPROGRAM
 
Respond to requests for child seat materials    100,000  Respond to requests for child seat              200,000
 from national, state, and local                          materials. The demand for traffic safety
 organizations plus individuals who are                   educational materials is increasing every
 conducting traffic safety programs.                      year at exponential rate.
Provide technical assistance to the states.      75,000  Increase technical assistance for child         150,000
 Training, demonstration grants,                          passenger safety programs and training.
 observational child safety seat use surveys.
 
  ``PATTERNS FOR LIFE''--CHILD SAFETY SEATS
                 SUBPROGRAM
 
Conduct and manage coalition events and          85,000  Continue activities such as were conducted       85,000
 partnerships lists. Develop and manage                   in fiscal year 1998.
 information exchange and technical
 assistance between members of the
 coalition; facilitate member sponsored
 media and promotion activities.
Materials Development--Develop, update, and     175,000  Materials Development--Continue activities      175,000
 revise training materials, public awareness              conducted in fiscal year 1998. This year's
 and information, and promotional items on                efforts will add the development of
 child passenger safety.                                  materials targeted for special populations.
Training Development--Support workshops,        175,000  Training Development--Continue activities       175,000
 training and other educational activities                conducted in fiscal year 1998.
 to enhance technical training programs.
 Provide technical assistance to states
 interested in educating opinion leaders on
 child passenger safety issues, effective
 communication, and coalition building.
Training Delivery--Work with national           105,000  Training Delivery--Continue activities such     105,000
 organizations to coordinate delivery of                  as were conducted in fiscal year 1998.
 training workshops to state and local
 affiliates. Facilitate training activities
 coordination.
Grassroots Educational Support--Develop          35,000  (Completed).................................  .........
 technical assistance for states interested
 in upgrading child passenger safety
 legislation and improving media advocacy
 skills for state and local program
 personnel.
Support Air Bag Safety Campaign--develop         30,000  (Completed).................................  .........
 approaches to educate the public about the
 risks of air bag injury to unrestrained and
 improperly restrained children, the need
 for effective child passenger safety law
 enforcement, and the benefits of effective
 child passenger safety laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           patterns for life
    Question. What specific products have resulted from this effort to 
date? What materials have been distributed to the States?
    Answer. The Patterns for Life program has produced a number of 
important products:
  --A comprehensive, technical curriculum Standardized Child Passenger 
        Safety Training Program has been developed and distributed 
        nationally for use by certified technician instructors. It 
        provides standardized, accurate, and up-to-date information 
        regarding child passenger safety. This development is a major 
        step towards developing improved child passenger safety 
        expertise in communities across the country. The curriculum is 
        supported by the following additional products:
    --A certification process has been established for technicians and 
            technician instructors. This helps maintain high 
            qualifications and abilities of those providing child 
            passenger safety education to their communities.
    --A database has been developed of all course participants and 
            instructors, as well as of classes held or planned. This 
            will assist states and organizations requesting technical 
            assistance to locate trained child passenger safety 
            technicians in their areas.
    --The Operation Kids training program for law enforcement officers, 
            has been updated to be consistent with the content of the 
            above Standardized Child Passenger Safety Training Program. 
            The training provides law enforcement officers with 
            training on actions they can take in their communities to 
            improve child passenger safety.
    --The Child Transportation Safety Materials Review and Evaluation 
            Booklet has been widely distributed. It provides a 
            checklist for child passenger safety advocates and 
            organizations to help them review educational materials and 
            to determine if the information they are providing to 
            parents and care givers is current.
  --A special insert on bicycle safety was included in the Spring Issue 
        of Safe Rides News. The focus of this newsletter will be 
        expanded to cover bicycle, pedestrian and school bus safety.
    Materials developed but not yet distributed include:
  --A CD-ROM for use by child passenger safety technicians to assist 
        them in determining which child seats will fit in which 
        vehicles. This product provides answers to child safety seat 
        installation and compatibility problems on over 300 models of 
        automobiles and approximately 100 models of child safety seats.
  --Child pedestrian safety materials for Spanish-speaking parents, 
        grandparents, and other care givers are being developed which 
        include a bilingual brochure, educator's guide, and broadcast 
        length video ``telenovela'' Amigos por Vida (Friends for Life).
  --A highway safety activity book is being developed for children age 
        5 to 11. It includes a board game, maze, crossword puzzle, and 
        crossword puzzle, all focusing on bicycle and pedestrian 
        safety, occupant protection (safety belts, child safety seats, 
        and bicycle helmets) and pupil transportation safety.
  --A Community Bicycle Safety Handbook is being developed to enable 
        sports franchises and communities to conduct their own 
        comprehensive bicycle safety events.
                         air bag safety program
    Question. Please summarize the Agency's efforts to address the 
adverse effects of airbag deployment, specifically as related to 
serious injuries and fatalities. How is that reflected in the fiscal 
year 1999 budget request?
    Answer. The agency is focused on developing test procedures and the 
accompanying vehicle performance requirements which will lead to the 
elimination of fatalities and reduce the severity of the injuries 
resulting from aggressive air bag deployment to children and adults, 
and to infants in rear facing child safety seats. This is to be 
accomplished simultaneously optimizing the benefits to normally seated 
restrained occupants and also providing protection for unbelted adults 
in high severity crashes. Research will include the analysis of 
injuries/fatalities with air bags, analysis of fatalities to children 
under 15 with air bags, and analysis of injuries/fatalities to drivers, 
to specifically identify cases of air bag aggressiveness contributing 
to the injuries/fatalities. This will include both field investigations 
as well as laboratory testing to evaluate aggressiveness of new-
generation air bags. Research also will assess advanced air bag 
technology that provides protection over a wide range of conditions, 
and will develop appropriate test procedures for evaluating air bag 
system performance over the range of conditions. The agency has 
requested $6.984 million in the fiscal year 1999 budget request to 
undertake this program.
    Question. Please provide in detail the amount spent on this area 
during fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and planned for fiscal year 
1999, being certain to identify purposes and objectives of those 
expenditures.
    Answer. The fiscal year 1997 budget devoted to air bag research was 
approximately $1.311 million. Work in fiscal year 1997 focused on 
laboratory testing and real-world crash analyses aimed at identifying 
technical approaches to address inflation caused injuries. Research 
efforts were geared to assessing near-term mitigation concepts--
primarily related to depowering air bag systems. Additional work was 
initiated to assess the performance of advanced technology or ``smart'' 
air bags. Work included biomechanics research, vehicle and air bag 
research, and real-world crash investigations.
    In fiscal year 1998, $6.331 million in funding has been allocated 
for air bag research. This research is directed toward allowing the 
agency to collect additional real-world crashes involving air bag-
equipped vehicles and to expand the biomechanics and vehicle and air 
bag research and testing program. The following provides a brief 
description of each of the major research program areas:
    Biomechanics Program ($3.15 million).--Design of less aggressive 
air bags requires a better understanding of injury mechanisms and 
tolerances of the human body to air bag loading. This is especially 
true for children and small females. This research will allow the 
generation of sufficient biomechanical data and provide necessary 
physical and analytical tools to address this issue.
    Safety Systems Program ($1.85 million).--Research will continue 
that is focused on the development, performance, and monitoring of 
advanced air bag systems to find solutions to the air bag problems 
identified in the field experience, including those injuries resulting 
from aggressive air bag deployments (especially to children). For the 
advanced air bag systems under development, research will identify the 
better performing systems, evaluate their best features, and determine 
the need for performance requirements regarding these systems.
    Special Crash Investigations ($1.031 million).--The Special Crash 
Investigations (SCI) program provides the flexibility to acquire 
detailed engineering information on crashes of special interest which 
fall outside the established scope or criteria of other agency data 
systems. It is the agency's primary resource for examining the safety 
impact of rapidly changing technology and exploring alleged or 
potential vehicle defects. These include but are not limited to 
investigation of crashes in which an air bag or safety belt system 
appeared to operate in an unexpected manner, crashes involving heavy 
trucks, crashes involving alternative fuel vehicles, crashes involving 
children in restraints, and serious school bus crashes not investigated 
by other Federal agencies. As new highway safety issues emerge, this 
program has the capability to respond quickly for collection of field 
information to support agency analysis and appropriate action.
    Collect Data Through Hospital Emergency Rooms ($0.3 million).--In 
order to better understand air bag-related injuries, funding is being 
requested to maximize the use of an existing relationship with the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission to conduct a clinical study of the 
nature and severity of injuries associated with air bag deployments.
    In fiscal year 1999, $6.984 million in funding has been requested 
for air bag research. The following provides a brief description of the 
fiscal year 1999 program for each of the major research areas:
    Biomechanics Program ($3 million).--Research will continue to 
address the near-term development of pediatric and small female injury 
criteria associated with the intense and complex out-of-position air 
bag deployment situation. These efforts have as their goal the 
development of essential tools for the assessment of current and 
emerging air bag deployment systems to allow maximizing crash 
protection.
    Safety Systems Program ($2.431 million).--Research will continue to 
focus on the development, performance, and monitoring of advanced air 
bag systems that build upon the short-term technological solutions to 
air bag problems identified in the field experience, including those 
injuries resulting from aggressive air bag deployments (especially to 
children). For the advanced air bag systems under development, the 
better performing systems will be evaluated and performance 
requirements established based on these systems. Also, research will 
include out-of-position occupant tests (static and/or dynamic) to 
evaluate the performance of side air bags and other related systems 
(i.e., Inflatable Tubular Structure (ITS), deployable upper interior 
paddings, etc.). Research will conduct reconstructions of crashes in 
which the air bag deployment caused either fatalities or severe 
injuries.
    Special Crash Investigations ($1.553 million).--Research will 
continue to investigate, through its SCI program, approximately 320 
motor vehicle crashes that qualify for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations 
Program and non-air bag related vehicle safety problems (i.e., school 
bus crashworthiness and pedestrian safety problems, potential safety 
defects, and alternative fuel vehicles). During fiscal year 1999, over 
200 new-generation and advanced air bag cases would be investigated.
    Question. What are the longer term actions to be taken by the 
Agency that may reduce or eliminate these problems? How is that 
reflected in the fiscal year 1999 budget request?
    Answer. On March 19, 1997, the agency published a final rule that 
temporarily amends the agency's occupant crash protection standard to 
ensure that vehicle manufacturers can quickly redesign air bags so that 
they inflate less aggressively. More specifically, the agency adopted 
an unbelted sled test protocol as a temporary alternative to the 
standard's full scale unbelted barrier crash test requirement. The 
agency took this action to provide an immediate, interim solution to 
the problem of the fatalities and injuries that current air bag systems 
are causing in relatively low speed crashes to a small, but growing 
number of children and occasionally to adults. The longer term action 
that is anticipated by the agency is the issuance of test procedures 
that lead to the introduction of air bag systems that provide benign 
deployment to out-of-position occupants and/or suppress deployment of 
the air bag when deployment is determined to hazardous to the occupant. 
These advanced systems are to provide protection to the variety of 
occupant sizes over the range of crash events where serious injuries 
and fatalities occur. The agency has requested $6.984 million for 
fiscal year 1999 for this activity.
    Question. What is the status of your work to advance smart air 
bags?
    Answer. The agency has initiated an extensive Special Crash 
Investigations program to monitor the performance of current-generation 
and new-generation air bag systems in the fleet experience, has 
initiated efforts to introduce a variety of dummy sizes and associated 
injury criteria (both child and fifth percentile female) into the 
agency's compliance test procedures, has initiated the development of 
new test procedures and associated performance requirements that lead 
to the introduction of air bag systems that provide benign deployment 
to out-of-position occupants and/or suppress deployment of the air bag 
when deployment is determined to hazardous to the occupant. These 
advanced systems are to provide protection to the variety of occupant 
sizes over the range of crash events where serious injuries and 
fatalities occur. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking resulting from these 
activities is anticipated for June, 1998.
    Question. The Committee directed NHTSA to ensure that sufficient 
emphasis is placed on quantifying the safety benefits and costs 
associated with depowering airbags. What is the progress to date?
    Answer. NHTSA conducted a complete analysis of the safety benefits 
and costs of depowered air bags in conjunction with the final rule 
permitting the temporary use of a sled test to comply with FMVSS 208 
crash test criteria. The results of that analysis were based on the 
data available at the time. Since then, further testing has been done 
on both pre-depowered and depowered systems.
    NCAP tests (35 mph rigid barrier tests with belted 50th percentile 
male dummies) were conducted on 46 depowered 1998 model vehicles. These 
tests showed only minor improvement over pre-depowered air bags in 
providing protection against head and neck injury to average size males 
in high speed crashes. They showed a minor decrease in protection 
against chest injuries. Overall, there was no significant change in 
safety measured in these belted, high-speed tests.
    FMVSS 208 30 mph rigid barrier tests were conducted on six 1998 
model vehicles with unbelted 50th percentile male dummies. These tests 
showed a minor improvement in safety for unbelted drivers, but a minor 
decrease in safety for unbelted passengers.
    NHTSA has also conducted static out-of-position tests with 5th 
percentile female dummies on four 1998 depowered vehicles. In three of 
the four vehicles tested, there was a significant reduction in serious 
neck injuries to out-of-position occupants, and modest reductions in 
head and chest injuries. Similar tests were conducted using 6 year old 
dummies. In these tests, four of the five vehicles experienced 
improvements in protection against head, neck, and chest injury.
    NHTSA also has an ongoing collaborative effort with Transport 
Canada to collect depowered air bag test data on restrained drivers and 
passengers, and especially on small occupants. Transport Canada has 
conducted low speed (25 mph) offset deformable barrier tests on 10 
vehicles and high speed (30 mph) rigid barrier tests on 9 vehicles. 
These tests indicate that smaller occupants have a lower risk of 
serious neck injury with depowered air bags than with pre-depowered air 
bags. However, in general, the depowered air bags showed little 
improvement in reducing air bag induced head and chest injury for 
belted small occupants.
    The above test results will be used to revise estimates of impacts 
of depowered air bags in the analysis of advanced air bags that is 
currently underway at NHTSA.
    NHTSA is also conducting a series of special crash investigations 
of crashes involving vehicles with depowered air bags. These 
investigations were undertaken in order to determine patterns of injury 
and to gain insight into the safety impacts of vehicles with this new 
technology. To date, 61 cases have been examined in this ongoing 
program. Cases examined thus far reveal a noticeable decline in the 
incidence of lower arm fractures.
    NHTSA will conduct an in-depth benefit assessment of depowering 
when enough years of real world crash data become available.
    Depowering of air bags can be accomplished by a simple substitution 
of a lower powered inflator, which might actually reduce the variable 
costs of air bag systems. There are also development costs to design, 
test, and certify compliance for new air bag designs. Overall, costs to 
depower air bags are not considered to be significant. NHTSA stated 
this in the final rule on the depowering issue published in February 
1997, and this assertion has not been challenged.
               enforcement and emergency services program
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated 
and the amount actually appropriated for the two programs specified 
under the Enforcement and Emergency Services Program for fiscal years 
1996, 1997, and 1998.
    Answer. See table below:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year 1996      Fiscal year 1997      Fiscal year 1998
                    Program                    -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Request     Approp    Request     Approp    Request     Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS...........................................      1,606      1,286      1,209      1,207      1,850      1,646
EMS...........................................      1,122      1,122      1,180      1,178      1,550      1,550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table for both of the components in the 
Enforcement and Emergency Services Program, showing how all of the 
funds requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent. Include 
in that table a comparison with the amount provided for similar 
activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please further 
justify the need for the requested increases over the fiscal year 1998 
appropriation amount.
    Answer.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal Year--
                                               -------------------------
                                                    1998         1999
                                                  Estimate     Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Traffic Services:
    Enforcement Demonstrations................          630          630
    Technology Transfer.......................          360          340
    Public Information and Education..........          227          250
    Training and Technical Assistance.........          173          218
    National Organizations....................          256          430
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................        1,646        1,868
                                               =========================
Emergency Medical Services:
    National Standard Curricula...............          486          370
    Injury Prevention & Control...............          389          585
    Leadership................................          250          370
    EMS System Support........................          357          480
    EMS Information, Technologies &                      68          145
     Dissemination............................
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................        1,550        1,950
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Police Traffic Services
    The additional resources are needed to implement a speeding and 
aggressive driving program. Speeding is a factor in 30 percent of all 
fatal crashes. Aggressive driving has rapidly become the driver 
behavior of major concern to the motoring public.
    In response to the elimination of the national maximum speed limit, 
NHTSA, FHWA and CDC contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to 
conduct a study of setting and enforcing speed limits. The results of 
this study will be pilot tested in several communities.
    NHTSA will conduct aggressive driving outreach program to combat 
aggressive driving. Additionally, the aggressive driving public 
information and education program will be expanded to include print, 
radio, and television media.
    Additional resources are also needed to implement more intense and 
visible traffic law enforcement activities required to support the 
President's Plan to Increase Seat Belt Use Nationwide, the Presidential 
.08 BAC initiative, and the Partners in Progress program.
    Finally, NHTSA will provide technical assistance on the 
implementation of Police Traffic Services in the 21st Century. This 
program will aid law enforcement agencies in dealing with the 
combination of dwindling resources, increased demands for service, 
application of new technology, and the need for public awareness of the 
importance of traffic law enforcement.
Emergency Medical Services
    The emergency medical services program will be significantly 
expanded in priority areas outlined in the EMS Agenda for the Future. 
These areas include Injury Prevention & Control, Leadership, EMS System 
Support, and EMS Information, Technologies & Dissemination. Added 
program emphasis in these areas is critical to take full advantage of 
current enthusiasm among the EMS community for achieving the objectives 
outlined in the Agenda.
    In the Injury Prevention and Control area, new projects will 
establish collaborative relationships between EMS and public health 
agencies. The new Bystander Care Campaign will be marketed with both a 
public awareness component and a community-based bystander training 
effort. The Leadership area will be strengthened with a program to 
recognize best practices related to achieving goals stated in the EMS 
Agenda and with a similar program to recognize state and local EMS 
quality improvement efforts.
    The EMS Systems Support activities will be expanded to provide 
technical support for an end-to-end emergency communication system. 
This system is the next step in the evolution of emergency access and 
response. It will utilize advanced technologies to provide faster and 
better emergency care and it will include the development of education 
materials as well as support for implementation of specific components 
of that system. The EMS Information, Technologies and Dissemination 
area will include new efforts to develop a consensus-based national EMS 
research agenda.
    Question. Please list the three most significant challenges to this 
program that must be addressed during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 
1999.
    Answer. The three most significant challenges to the Enforcement 
and Emergency Services program during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 
1999 are:
1998
    Increasing safety belt and child safety seat usage and combating 
impaired driving, speeding and aggressive driving behaviors will 
require countermeasures and best practices that can be used by law 
enforcement agencies throughout the country.
    Providing technical assistance on the implementation of Police 
Traffic Services in the 21st Century. This includes dealing with 
dwindling resources and increase demands for service; application of 
technology; and public awareness of the importance of traffic law 
enforcement.
    Increasing recognition and endorsement of the EMS Agenda for the 
Future by continuing to promote the value of a common vision through 
the EMS professional literature, national EMS professional 
organizations and in key national meetings. The program will also 
provide continued recognition of best practices for achieving these 
visions.
1999
    Increasing safety belt and child safety seat usage and combating 
impaired driving, and aggressive driving outreach and coalition 
building to get the support of the motoring public will require 
expanding public information and education efforts.
    Providing technical assistance to states and communities to combat 
speeding, using the results of the National Academy of Sciences' study 
Guidance on Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. This study was 
conducted in response to the eradication of the national maximum speed 
limit in 1995.
    Implementing the EMS Agenda will require more specific guidance, 
sponsorship of consensus meetings to create implementation plans, 
revision of the Blueprint for EMS Education and Practice, and 
development of a national research agenda.
    Question. Please discuss what NHTSA is doing to further the use of 
cellular 911 numbers. How is this reflected in your fiscal year 1999 
request?
    Answer. NHTSA is promoting the concept of an end-to-end emergency 
communication system utilizing advanced communication technology to 
provide quicker and better response to crashes or other life-
threatening emergencies. Central to this system is the cellular 911 
communication link which allows instant access from the emergency scene 
and provides the mechanism for determining the precise location of the 
emergency, and for transmitting crash and medical data to enable 
dispatchers to provide the most appropriate first response resources.
    The agency built support for the end-to-end concept among the 
health and medical community by conducting a national ``Call to 
Action'' meeting during EMS Week in May 1997, and by publishing 
informational documents explaining the need for the improved emergency 
communication system. NHTSA has since worked with several national EMS 
professional organizations to encourage involvement of their members in 
local efforts to implement cellular 911.
    The Emergency Medical Services budget request for fiscal year 1999 
includes support for conducting educational activities for emergency 
communication personnel to facilitate their preparation for 
implementing cellular 911.
    Question. What could be done to expedite the use of a uniform 
system anywhere in the nation?
    Answer. NHTSA is promoting the concept of an end-to-end emergency 
communication system. This system will enhance public safety by 
utilizing advanced technology to provide a faster and better emergency 
response to 911 calls. The end-to-end concept acknowledges the need for 
consistency from one end of the nation to the other and the need for 
complete coverage of the emergency event, from injury to arrival at the 
hospital. Creating the end-to-end system will require the commitment 
and action of public and private sector stakeholders at the national, 
state and local levels.
    The agency is working to bring these stakeholders together. NHTSA 
sponsored a national ``Call to Action'' meeting during EMS Week in May 
1997 to bring the health and medical community together with the 
cellular telephone industry and emergency communication providers. 
NHTSA has also published documents to increase awareness of the need 
for a consistent national emergency communication system among 
stakeholder groups, and is working through the Intelligent 
Transportation System (ITS) program to facilitate incorporation of this 
system in the national ITS architecture.
    Stimulating the local action necessary to build a uniform system is 
a major challenge. The agency will continue efforts to mobilize local 
representatives of health and medical organizations in support of 
implementation of the end-to-end emergency communication system and 
will direct technical support where needed to augment local resources.
    Question. What efforts were undertaken on that initiative during 
fiscal year 1998?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1998, NHTSA conducted several activities to 
further nationwide implementation of cellular or wireless 911. The 
agency continued to build support for local implementation by alerting 
public safety professionals of the current limitations of cellular 911 
and of the need for community action to upgrade this emergency access 
system. NHTSA developed and distributed informational documents 
explaining technical aspects of the problem and presented this 
information in key national forums.
    The NHTSA Administrator worked with the Cellular Telecommunications 
Industry Association to develop local infrastructure to support 
wireless 911. To provide national leadership, the agency supported 
development of the EMS Agenda for the Future Implementation Guide which 
includes two objectives related to cellular 911 among its ten priority 
objectives for the future of EMS.
    NHTSA continues to work closely with the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) and the national associations representing 911 call 
centers to facilitate implementation of the 1996 FCC regulation 
requiring cellular providers to provide 911 service.
                        police traffic services
    Question. How much money is planned to be spent in fiscal year 1999 
on efforts to demonstrate the link between traffic enforcement and the 
detection of criminal activity? What is the status of that effort?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999, $40,000 will be allocated to update 
case studies demonstrating the link between crime and traffic 
enforcement. Prior case studies were compiled in 1995 and 1997 from 
Grand Prairie, TX and Peoria, IL and were based on limited data. This 
new effort will fund the services of a full time, commissioned law 
enforcement officer, for one full year, to gather data from additional 
agencies which have data to support this linkage and to market the 
program to law enforcement. This expanded case study will identify 
currently successful programs and will document ``best practices'' for 
use by other law enforcement agencies.
    Question. How much was spent on this in fiscal year 1998?
    Answer. No funds were spent on this effort in fiscal year 1998.
    Question. Please provide a detailed break out for fiscal year 1998 
activities and fiscal year 1999 planned activities with associated 
funding amounts.
    Answer. The information follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fiscal year 1998                  Amount                 Fiscal year 1999                  Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implement a field test of an automated speed    $40,000  Sponsor a joint project between NHTSA and       $50,000
 enforcement program on the George                        FHWA on speed deterrent initiatives.
 Washington Parkway. The field test will
 ensure maximum coverage of the sections of
 the parkway where speed related crashes
 have most frequently occurred.
Conduct an aggressive driving enforcement       540,000  Implement two Aggressive Driver Pilot           500,000
 demonstration project in a major urban area              Projects in major metropolitan areas, to
 to identify effective innovative                         validate the techniques used in the 1998
 enforcement techniques, possible                         demonstration project.
 applications for new enforcement
 technology, legislative, prosecutorial or
 judicial needs and what role alcohol or
 drugs play in the problem.
Establish a system to respond to requests        56,000  Support the services of a technical expert       30,000
 from the law enforcement community                       in speed measurement technology who can
 regarding the availability and                           assess and report on new technology for use
 applicability of new enforcement                         by the law enforcement community.
 technology, thus reducing or eliminating
 repetitive testing of instruments.
Obtain data from individual states that can      50,000  Sponsor (with FHWA) workshops for patrol         50,000
 be analyzed and evaluated to determine the               officers on Traffic Enforcement and
 effects of raising speed limits on specific              Commercial Vehicles, based on a jointly
 roadways.                                                developed training course.
Provide technical support to law enforcement    110,000  Provide technical support to law enforcement    110,000
 on speed measuring instruments, including                on speed measuring instruments, including
 maintaining and modifying the minimum                    maintaining and modifying the minimum
 performance specifications and testing                   performance specifications and testing
 protocols for RADAR, LIDAR, and automated                protocols for RADAR, LIDAR, and automated
 speed measuring instruments.                             speed measuring instruments.
Upgrade one of the current International        100,000  Assess the application technology which         200,000
 Association of Chiefs of Police sponsored                expands the deterrent effect of automated
 testing labs with the capability for                     enforcement devices (speed and red light)
 testing automated speed measuring                        jointly with FHWA.
 instruments.
Continue a project to develop magnetic strip     50,000  Assess labor saving enforcement devices such     50,000
 and barcode reader that will automatically               as ALERT vehicle and computer applications.
 populate forms and automatically transmit
 data to check for stolen vehicle, wanted
 person, drivers license history and etc.
Provide the services of a trained law            20,000  Provide the services of a trained law            20,000
 enforcement officer to promote and enhance               enforcement officer to promote and enhance
 the enforcement activities associated with               the enforcement activities associated with
 Campaign Safe & Sober sTEP programs, the                 Campaign Safe & Sober sTEP programs and the
 Presidential Seat Belt Initiative, and                   Presidential Seat Belt Initiative.
 expand aggressive driving enforcement
 programs.
Convene a group of law enforcement               71,000  Develop radio public service announcements      150,000
 administrators to develop a plan and                     on aggressive driving and excessive speed
 facilitate the implementation of the 21st                to target the high risk groups.
 Century Recommendation Report.
Provide the services of a trained law            40,000  Provide technical assistance to law              25,000
 enforcement officer to gather data on the                enforcement based on the results of the
 effect that various traffic safety                       police fleet crash study conducted in
 activities have on reducing law                          fiscal year 1998.
 enforcement's injury crashes.
Support principal national law enforcement      120,000  Support principal national law enforcement      110,000
 association to provide guidance to law                   association to provide guidance to law
 enforcement leaders to increase occupant                 enforcement leaders to increase occupant
 protection use, and to reduce impaired                   protection use, and to reduce impaired
 driving, speeding, and aggressive driving.               driving, speeding, and aggressive driving.
Support principal national sheriff's            100,000  Support principal national sheriff's            100,000
 association to provide guidance to law                   association to provide guidance access to
 enforcement leaders to increase occupant                 law enforcement leaders to increase
 protection use, and to reduce impaired                   occupant protection use, and to reduce
 driving, speeding, and aggressive driving.               impaired driving, speeding, and aggressive
                                                          driving.
Support efforts of national organization of      20,000  Support efforts of a national organization       20,000
 state police and highway patrol agencies                 of state police and highway patrol agencies
 nationwide, to conduct dedicated special                 nationwide, to conduct special traffic
 traffic enforcement programs during key                  enforcement programs during key holidays.
 holidays.
Provide public information and educational      280,000  Support the Campaign Safe & Sober public        100,000
 materials on occupant protection, impaired               information and education program.
 driving, speeding, and aggressive driving
 to law enforcement agencies.
Provide technical assistance to law              49,000  Update the legal section of the National Law     40,000
 enforcement agencies to support traffic                  Enforcement Driver Training Reference Guide.
 enforcement agencies' techniques.
                                                         Conduct and support a workshop for traffic       50,000
                                                          law enforcement in a high fatality region.
                                                         Revise and update the Model Minimum             100,000
                                                          Performance Specifications for Speed-
                                                          Measuring Instruments and support speed
                                                          measurement devices.
                                                         Support the services of a trained law            40,000
                                                          enforcement officer to promote and expand
                                                          the enforcement activities associated with
                                                          aggressive driving enforcement programs.
                                                         Provide technical assistance on the              23,000
                                                          implementation of the Police Traffic
                                                          Services in the 21st Century
                                                          recommendations.
                                                         Support the services of a trained law            40,000
                                                          enforcement officer to make national
                                                          distribution of the study of the effect
                                                          traffic enforcement has on crime and expand
                                                          the series of case studies of projects that
                                                          demonstrate the positive effect traffic
                                                          enforcement has on the reduction of crashes
                                                          and criminal activity.
                                                         Develop a guide for the enforcement of           60,000
                                                          occupant protection laws in a diverse
                                                          commun-  ity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What is the compelling reason for the requested increase 
in PTS activity in fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. The additional resources are needed to support efforts to 
increase safety belt and child safety seat usage, reduce alcohol 
impaired driving and to implement a speeding and aggressive driving 
program. Speeding is a factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes. 
Aggressive driving has rapidly become the driver behavior of most 
concern to the motoring public.
    The additional resources are needed to implement more intense 
traffic law enforcement program activities and new initiatives designed 
to achieve the challenging belt use in the President's Plan to Increase 
Seat Belt Use Nationwide, the Presidential .08 BAC initiative as well 
as the Partner's in Progress Implementation Guide to reduce impaired 
driving.
    Also, in response to the elimination of the national maximum speed 
limit, NHTSA, FHWA and CDC contracted with the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct a study of setting and enforcing speed limits. The 
results of this study will be pilot tested in several communities.
    NHTSA will conduct aggressive driving outreach and coalition 
building to get the support of the motoring public in combating the 
aggressive driver. Additionally, the aggressive driving public 
information and education program will be expanded to include print and 
television.
                  state motor vehicle services program
    Question. NHTSA has been working on a new agenda for traffic 
records for several years. What components will be included in your new 
agenda? What is the expected issue date for that agenda?
    Answer. The following components will be included in the new 
agenda: traffic records assessments (and reassessments); traffic record 
file integration; the technology clearinghouse; minimum crash data 
criteria; the traffic records forum; traffic safety managers training 
course; traffic safety quantitative analysis training course; 
development of a population-based data file; driver history initiative; 
intelligent transportation systems; adaptations of global positioning 
and geographical information systems; use of expert systems to improve 
crash data quality; support for an American Association of Motor 
Vehicle Administrators Multi-Year (MY) Plan; and inclusion of traffic 
records in the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and 
Ordinances. Each of the components included in the agenda relate to 
improving traffic records data collection, management, and analysis. 
The draft new agenda is considerably expanded over previous versions 
and will be made available for review and comments to NHTSA, FHWA and 
appropriate safety organizations by June 1, 1998. The revised agenda 
will be presented at the Traffic Records Forum, July 26-29, 1998 in 
Minneapolis.
    Question. Please provide a table indicating the amount allocated 
and the amount actually appropriated for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 
1998 in this area.
    Answer. See table below:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year 1996      Fiscal year 1997      Fiscal year 1998
                    Program                    -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Request     Approp    Request     Approp    Request     Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R&L...........................................      1,284      1,284      1,330      1,329      1,579      1,579
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please submit a table showing how all of the funds 
requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please 
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for similar 
activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the 
need for the requested increases.
    Answer. See table below and response.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                Activity                       1998            1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Clearinghouse................         $80,000         $80,000
Traffic Safety Manager Quantitative               60,000          60,000
 Analysis Training......................
Traffic Safety Manage Training in Use of          44,000          44,000
 Analytical Software....................
Intermediate Data Analysis Training.....          50,000          50,000
Minimum Crash Data Set..................          60,000          60,000
Traffic Records Forum...................          60,000          60,000
Population Data Base....................          55,000          55,000
Traffic Records Technology Grants.......         302,000         266,000
AAMVA MYPLAN............................          50,000          50,000
NCUTLO Marketing Plan...................          50,000          50,000
SCS Transfer--Technical Assistance to            768,000         815,000
 States (data linkage/program
 evaluation)............................
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................       1,579,000       1,590,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Justification for Increase in SCS Transfer.--The agency plans to 
expand its technical assistance to states in data linkage and program 
evaluation procedures.
                    highway safety research program
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated 
and the amount actually appropriated for the subprograms in the Highway 
Safety Research program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
    Answer. See table below.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year 1996      Fiscal year 1997      Fiscal year 1998
                    Program                    -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Request     Approp    Request     Approp    Request     Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alc & Drugs...................................      1,802      1,772      1,606      1,603      1,600      1,600
Occupant Prot.................................        645        635        575        574        774        774
Older Driver..................................        390        490        444        543        550        550
Ped & Bicyl...................................        302        302        302        301        375        375
Speed & Unsafe................................        615        615        556        655        699        699
Driver Ed.....................................        350        255        350        349        400        400
Drvr Fatigue..................................  .........      1,000  .........        980  .........  .........
Evaluation....................................  .........  .........      1,000        100        500        500
EMS...........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........        225        225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table for each of the subprograms in the 
Highway Safety Research Program, showing how all the funds requested 
for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please include in 
that table a comparison with the amount provided for similar activities 
for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the need for 
the requested increases.
    Answer. See the tables that follow, and the additional information 
regarding the need for increased budget amounts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
               Subprogram                      1998            1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ALCOHOL AND DRUG RESEARCH
 
Identify target groups and activities...        $600,000        $370,000
Develop enforcement improvements........         550,000         300,000
Evaluate injury control programs........         100,000  ..............
Evaluate drinking driving legislation...         200,000         250,000
Test high-impact countermeasures........  ..............         200,000
Develop programs to reduce repeat         ..............         200,000
 offenders..............................
Develop traffic law system improvements.  ..............         100,000
Identify drugged driving characteristics         150,000         150,000
 and develop countermeasures............
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       1,600,000       1,570,000
                                         ===============================
      OCCUPANT PROTECTION RESEARCH
 
Develop, implement, and test strategies          300,000         250,000
 to increase seat belt use..............
Develop strategies for youth............          80,000          85,000
Determining strategies for passing               120,000  ..............
 primary belt laws......................
Identify strategies to combat problems           124,000         220,000
 in child passenger safety..............
Research supporting ``Buckle Up           ..............         305,000
 America''..............................
Monitor public attitudes, knowledge,             150,000         220,000
 behavior...............................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................         774,000       1,080,000
                                         ===============================
  SPEED AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING RESEARCH
 
Determine the magnitude of the speeding          149,000  ..............
 problem, identify targets..............
Fleet study of crash risk...............         200,000         250,000
GW Parkway safety program...............         300,000         300,000
Implement and evaluate countermeasures..  ..............  ..............
Develop objective definition, and                 50,000  ..............
 determine incidence of aggressive
 driving................................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................         699,000         914,000
                                         ===============================
    PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST RESEARCH
 
Develop and test programs for target              30,000  ..............
 groups.................................
Large city demonstration program........         290,000  ..............
Literature review of conspicuity........          30,000  ..............
Monitor attitudes and behaviors.........          25,000  ..............
Develop and field test bike               ..............  ..............
 countermeasures........................
Evaluate impact of motorcycle law         ..............  ..............
 repeals................................
                                         ===============================
      Total.............................         375,000         375,000
                                         ===============================
          OLDER DRIVER RESEARCH
 
Field test driver licensing system......         300,000  ..............
Identify medical conditions and crash            150,000  ..............
 risk...................................
Implement demonstration programs........  ..............  ..............
Update older driver report..............          50,000  ..............
Field test guidelines for older drivers   ..............  ..............
 with health care and social service
 agencies...............................
Examine mobility issues.................          50,000         100,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................         550,000         550,000
                                         ===============================
        DRIVER EDUCATION RESEARCH
 
Training to improve decision making.....         100,000  ..............
Evaluate graduated licensing systems....         175,000         200,000
Develop 2-phase driver education program         125,000         200,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................         400,000         400,000
                                         ===============================
   EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES RESEARCH
 
EMS outcomes evaluation.................         125,000         150,000
Rural preventable mortality follow-on...         100,000  ..............
Conduct study of patient outcomes in out- ..............  ..............
 of-hospital emergency set-  tings......
Review pre-hospital data for crash        ..............  ..............
 victims................................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................         225,000         340,000
                                         ===============================
        SAFETY PROGRAM EVALUATION
 
Evaluate belt laws......................         100,000  ..............
Evaluate Partners in Progress...........  ..............         150,000
Evaluate innovative programs............         250,000  ..............
Evaluate Presidential initiative on seat         150,000         173,000
 belt use...............................
Evaluate NEXTEA incentive grant program.  ..............  ..............
Investigate possible applications of ITS  ..............         125,000
 and other advanced technology..........
Evaluate air bag safety campaign........  ..............         150,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................         500,000         648,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justification for increases:
    Additional funding for Occupant Protection Research.--The 
additional funds would fund research to support implementation of the 
``Buckle Up America'' campaign. Buckle Up America is the Presidential 
initiative to increase seat belt use to 85 percent by the year 2000 and 
to 90 percent by the year 2005. It is a priority of the agency and the 
Department. The funding will be directed towards providing a solid 
research and monitoring foundation to the campaign to enhance its 
effectiveness. This entails developing and testing interventions and 
evaluating Buckle Up activities.
    Additional funding for Speed and Aggressive Driving Research.--The 
additional funding is needed to initiate a study of the increased crash 
risk associated with specific types of speeding. A fleet of vehicles 
will be equipped with low cost data recorders that will measure when, 
and under what circumstances, the vehicles are driven above the posted 
limit. This project will provide critical information on the situations 
and circumstances in which speeding elevates crash risk and will allow 
the development of targeted enforcement focused on the situations where 
speeding is most likely to cause crashes.
    Additional funding for Emergency Medical Services Research.--This 
funding is for research to reduce rural preventable mortality and to 
evaluate pre-hospital care to ensure that is delivered efficiently and 
effectively. Funding for Emergency Medical Services Research has been 
moved to the research office to take advantage of the greater research 
and evaluation expertise and experience so that research of only the 
highest quality is produced.
    Additional funding for Program Evaluation.--This funding will be 
used to evaluate major activities resulting from the agency's efforts 
to increase safety belt and child safety seat use through the 
Presidential initiative on seat belt use, Air Bag Safety Campaign, and 
the Partners in Progress program. Special emphasis will be placed on 
evaluation the impact of the legislative and enforcement activities.
                         older driver research
    Question. Please list the publications issued during the last year 
in this area and associated NTIS numbers.
    Answer. Many projects have come to fruition in the past year and 
several reports have been written. Three of the publications written 
have been journal articles; they include: ``Safe Mobility for People 
with Alzheimer Disease: A Commentary'' in Alzheimer Disease and 
Associated Disorders, Vol. 11, 1997; ``Safe Mobility for Senior 
Citizens'' in the journal of the International Association of Traffic 
Safety Sciences (IATSS), Vol. 20, 1996; and ``Crash Prediction Models 
for Older Drivers'' in Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1998.
    A DOT Technical Report was also published: ``Improving 
Transportation for a Maturing Society'', DOT-P10-97-01.
    Several technical reports from contractors that are under review by 
the Agency include: Safety Wheel Program; Family and Friends Concerned 
About an Older Driver; Development of Statistical Relationships Between 
Vehicle Crash Rates, Moving Violations and Age-Related Physical and 
Mental Limitations; Assessing the Older Driver--Pilot Studies; Mobility 
Consequences of the Reduction or Cessation of Driving by Older Persons; 
and Improving the Safe Mobility of Older Persons and Measures for 
Increasing the Mobility of Aging Commonwealth Citizens.
    Question. Please present a summary of the specific products that 
have resulted from this program during the last year and how those 
results have benefitted state licensing agencies, physicians, and 
families.
    Answer. The results of NHTSA's problem identification research in 
cooperation with the National Institute on Aging has helped to identify 
some of the older driver groups that need special attention. In 
addition, our research on the role of families, law enforcement, social 
service agencies and other caretakers is being used to develop 
materials for the benefit of driver licensing agencies, health and 
social service agencies and families. These products will be used to 
identify older drivers who may be at increased risk of being in a 
crash.
    An example of a product recently developed is ``The Safety Wheel 
Program Guide Book'' that provides social service agencies with 
guidelines for dealing with older driver issues. The guide book gives 
specific strategies on how to deal with problem drivers and yet still 
keep them mobile. Another recent product includes very promising driver 
license screening tests, developed under a cooperative agreement with 
the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which are being used in 
our overall model screening and assessment demonstration project 
currently underway in Maryland's Department of Motor Vehicles and other 
agencies dealing with aging.
    Question. Please assess progress made on the five-year strategic 
plan regarding older driver research that was requested by the 
Committee several years ago.
    Answer. The older driver research plan emphasized three areas: 
identifying high risk older drivers via screening and assessment by 
licensing agencies; helping older drivers to self regulate their 
driving by family and friends; and better identification of problematic 
older drivers by physicians and care takers. Several projects have been 
completed in these areas and reports have been published or are 
forthcoming. One enhancement to the plan is that the Agency has 
determined that working with a state consortium in selecting and pilot 
testing ``model'' programs is a very effective way to obtain state 
cooperation. The agency will pilot test the model programs developed in 
the above projects in the State of Maryland this year and next. The 
Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles will pilot test the licensing 
aspects, while various Maryland agencies on aging will test other 
aspects dealing with family, friends and the medical and health 
communities.
    Obtain state cooperation.--The agency will pilot test the model 
programs developed in the above projects in the State of Maryland this 
year and next. The Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles will pilot 
test the licensing aspects, while various Maryland agencies on aging 
will test other aspects dealing with family, friends and the medical 
and health communities.
    Question. Is it time to develop another five-year plan?
    Answer. Based on our research findings it has become increasingly 
evident that older women may be more at risk of not having safe 
mobility as they age. Less than 25 percent of women over 85 drive. They 
outlive their husbands by 8 to 10 years, and have limited access to 
alternative transportation. NHTSA will conduct a needs analysis in 
fiscal year 1998. If it turns out that there is evidence of an emerging 
problem with elderly women, the agency will develop another five year 
plan with emphasis in that area.
    Question. In Senate Report 104-325, the Committee indicated that 
NHTSA should continue its work on demonstration activities for 
technologies and practices intended to improve driver performance of 
older drivers at risk of losing their licenses. How is this reflected 
in the fiscal year 1999 budget request and in the fiscal year 1998 
spending plan for TSP?
    Answer. As part of our fiscal year 1998 funded activities, the 
agency will be developing a model screening and assessment program that 
will include activities to improve performance of older drivers at risk 
of losing their license. That project is working closely with the 
States of Maryland and Florida to pilot test assessment tools to 
identify potential weaknesses. Once pilot tested, drivers who have 
problems will be referred to vision specialists, occupational 
therapists and other specialists to overcome the problems whenever 
possible. In fiscal year 1999, field test of driver licensing system 
and field test of guidelines for older drivers with health care and 
social service agencies will begin.
    Question. Please be certain to break out activities and specific 
funding levels for each activity.
    Answer. Fiscal year 1998: Field Testing Model Driver Licensing 
Systems--$300,000 (to pilot test model screening and assessment 
program).
    Fiscal year 1999: Field Test Driver Licensing System $200,000; 
Field Test Health and Social Service System: $200,000, Update 
Transportation for an Aging Society--$50,000 and Examine Mobility 
Issues: $100,000
    Question. What is NHTSA doing to improve the safe mobility of older 
drivers? What are the results achieved during the last year?
    Answer. NHTSA is managing a program to develop and evaluate model 
screening, assessment and rehabilitation programs. In addition, the 
Agency is coordinating a number of other related activities (e.g. 
guidelines for self-regulation) in several states. Staff has provided 
specific guidance to states and other countries (e.g. Canada, 
Australia, and New Zealand) on programs to enhance safe mobility for 
older people. Programs to help screen out high risk older drivers and 
to help with alternative transportation for those who cease driving are 
under development or being implemented in Florida, Maryland, Michigan, 
California, New York, and Pennsylvania with technical assistance from 
NHTSA. The Agency is also working with the American Association for 
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and various public affairs and 
consumer education groups to get better information to the general 
public on the key issues in this important safety area.
    Question. What is NHTSA doing to demonstrate new approaches to the 
licensing of older drivers during fiscal year 1998? During fiscal year 
1999?
    Answer. NHTSA is working with the state of Maryland to pilot test 
an overall program designed to keep older people safely mobile. NHTSA 
is working with Maryland to establish a consortium of the key groups 
who can have significant roles in identifying, assessing, 
rehabilitating, counseling and assisting older people either to 
maintain their driving ability or transitioning to alternative means of 
transportation. The activity is bringing together all of the prior 
research that NHTSA and others have conducted including the 
identification of older drivers who may be at risk of crashing or 
losing their mobility. Older drivers at increased risk could be 
identified by family members, social service agencies, law enforcement 
groups, or the medical community. Driver screening and diagnostic 
testing with the potential for rehabilitating functional disabilities 
will also be pilot tested in the Maryland demonstration project. The 
project will also determine ways to keep older people mobile who either 
have to restrict or stop driving altogether.
    Question. Have those demonstrations of improved screening and 
evaluation been effective?
    Answer. Some of the elements of the instruments that are being 
pilot testing in Maryland have been shown to be predictive of crash 
involvement or poor performance on certain road tests. NHTSA is 
currently attempting to determine in the pilot tests in Maryland 
whether or not these instruments can distinguish between those who are 
crash involved, those who have traffic citations and those who have 
been referred to their Department of Motor Vehicles for a medical 
condition or functional limitation.
    Question. Please discuss how you used the GM settlement monies to 
supplement appropriated older driver research monies. How much did you 
allocate for that purpose? (GM and appropriated monies)
    Answer. While NHTSA's research has studied older drivers from the 
perspective of identifying unsafe drivers and restricting their ability 
to drive, the General Motors (GM) projects have focused on identifying 
opportunities and methods for extending the driving time of safe and 
qualified older persons. GM awarded nine grants to conduct research in 
four areas that complement NHTSA-sponsored research: (a) three projects 
are investigating various aspects of trends in older-driver crash 
involvement and causality and projecting outcomes into the next 
quarter-century; (b) two projects are extending NHTSA's work with self-
regulation of driving by older persons by investigating different 
systems and procedures for providing information to drivers; (c) three 
projects are examining a variety of factors that influence older 
persons to stop driving prematurely and testing the effects of 
different kinds of information on extending their mobility; and (d) one 
project is looking at methods for extending older-drivers' mobility 
through performing careful assessments and installing personalized 
adaptive devices on the driver's automobile. These projects are 
supported solely by GM funds: $5 million over a 5-year period. No 
appropriated funds have been used in the conduct of these projects.
                            driver education
    Question. Please describe progress or accomplishments in this area.
    Answer. Following submission of the 1994 Report to Congress, 
Research Agenda For An Improved Novice Driver Education Program, 
various contract activities have been initiated. A study to review the 
use of various simulation devices was completed in 1996, ``Feasibility 
of New Simulation Technology to Train Novice Drivers.'' An effort to 
develop parental participation materials for providing guided practice 
to novice drivers is nearing completion. The materials will be 
available by September 1998 and will be distributed by the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators to the States. An effort to 
develop a CD-ROM program to train novice drivers to make better risk 
management decisions is underway. A Beta version is expected by 
September 1998. Various safety associations are considering marketing 
of the training program. Efforts have been initiated through 
Cooperative Agreements with the American Driver and Traffic Safety 
Education Association and the National Safety Council to conduct 
activities to establish a national curriculum for a two-tiered driver 
education program. These efforts also provide limited assistance (e.g., 
expert testimony) to States who are considering improving driver 
education as a part of a graduated driver licensing system. Agency 
staff also provides consultation to various safety groups that are also 
attempting to improve training programs for novice drivers (e.g., 
American Automobile Association).
                     driver fatigue and inattention
    Question. Senate Report 104-325 directed NHTSA to prepare a report 
on driver fatigue and inattention, and encouraged collaborative efforts 
and funding activities between NHTSA and the National Center on Sleep 
Disorders Research. Please provide the status and findings of that 
report, and whether it is on schedule.
    Answer. The report to the Senate is being delayed in order to 
include the joint NHTSA and NIH report prepared by the expert panel 
convened by the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research (NCSDR). 
Internal reviews at the two agencies required considerably more time 
than expected, but that report is currently being printed.
    The NCSDR panel report presents information in four major areas: 
mechanisms of human sleep and sleepiness, characteristics of drowsy 
driving crashes, population groups at highest risk, and effective 
drowsy driving countermeasures. The report to the Senate will include 
the panel report, a list of panel members, the panel's recommendations 
to NHTSA, and details of the NCSDR fiscal year 1997 program. The 
expected delivery date is July 31, 1998.
    NCSDR and NHTSA have completed a new interagency agreement, funded 
at $234,000 from NHTSA's fiscal year 1997 appropriation. These funds 
support the NCSDR's effort to create and disseminate drowsy-driving 
information to school-age drivers in cooperation with their private-
sector partners.
    Question. Please present an updated chart similar to that provided 
last year showing which projects have been funded, their purposes, 
amounts and participants. Please present a similar updated chart 
showing a schedule of anticipated projects. When were these contracts 
signed? What are the challenges that remain in developing that program?
    Answer. All the components of the development program, including 
the evaluation and implementation components, are currently in place 
and are summarized in the table below. The remaining challenge will be 
to keep the projects on track and on schedule in order to complete the 
program development deadline of Summer 1998, to award implementation 
grants by Fall 1998, and to ensure the cooperation of the implementing 
entities with the evaluation process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Amount
                 Project                                          Purpose                            (Date                    Participants
                                                                                                    Signed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyze role of fatigue, sleep disorders,  Describe characteristics of FSDI crashes; Identify        $130,000  National Center on Sleep Disorders
 & inattention (FSDI) in highway crashes.   subgroups most at risk.                                 (8/14/96)   Research.
Investigate instances of fatigue-related   Observe drivers during fatigue-related inattention         100,000  NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center.
 events in motor-vehicle operation.         incidents; Establish characteristics of inattention.    (9/23/96)
Develop and test educational               Specify target populations; Determine message themes       175,000  Harvard Univ. School of Public Health.
 countermeasures for fatigue-related        (content); Establish motivational approaches;           (6/26/96)
 highway crashes.                           Establish dissemination strategies.
Develop strategy and lay foundation for    Determine campaign objectives & target audience;           325,000  Global Exchange, Inc.
 education and information campaign.        Determine content, strategy, & media mix; Prepare       (9/20/96)
                                            and test draft materials; Refine materials.
Evaluate information and education         Determine appropriate outcome measures & evaluation        516,000  Systems Assessment and Research, Inc.
 campaign to combat fatigue-related         design; Choose evaluation sites; Collect pre- & post-    (9/1/97)   (through GSA FEDSIM).
 highway crashes.                           campaign data; Evaluate campaign; Recommend
                                            revisions.
Promulgate the educational program to      Identify communities, organizations and associations       271,000  Global Exchange
 implementation sites.                      that serve appropriate target group constituencies;    \1\ (9/26/
                                            Create interest in program implementation; Award              97)
                                            competitive grants to support implementation          \2\ 200,000
                                            activities; Provide program materials to                    To be
                                            implementors.                                            Arranged
Conduct supplementary implementation       Adapt campaign themes for use in ongoing educational       234,000  National Center on Sleep Disorders
 activities.                                programs for target audiences; Produce and              (9/15/97)   Research.
                                            disseminate supplementary materials through
                                            appropriate channels to reach target audience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Materials production & program administration costs.
\2\ Grants to implementors.

    Question. What new findings have resulted from research to 
determine the role of sleep disorders or fatigue as a causal factor in 
traffic crashes?
    Answer. NHTSA's research has been limited to discovering what is 
currently known about the causal role of sleep disorders or fatigue in 
motor vehicle crashes. Consequently, no new information has been 
generated. Members of the NCSDR panel agree that more extensive 
knowledge about the role of fatigue in crashes will require some yet 
undiscovered method for reliably assessing the level of fatigue of 
crash-involved drivers.
    NHTSA's current efforts are focused on the development of the 
fatigue education program. We have conducted several rounds of focus 
group interviews with young male drivers, shift workers, and shift-work 
supervisors to establish the informational needs and motivational 
approaches appropriate for these candidate target groups. These 
qualitative studies revealed that, while young males accept the 
consequences of sleep loss and drowsy driving as acceptable lifestyle 
choices, shift workers yearn for more or better sleep. Shift workers 
are personally familiar with the hazards of driving while drowsy and 
express eagerness for remedies to reduce these hazards.
    Question. What progress has been made in the development and 
implementation of public education programs?
    Answer. Contracts for all components of the development and 
evaluation of the educational program have been awarded and work to 
establish the foundations of the educational program has been 
completed. The National Centers on Sleep Disorders Research (NCSDR) 
expert panel has completed its report which provides information on 
mechanisms of human sleep and sleepiness, characteristics of drowsy 
driving crashes, guidance for population groups at highest risk, and 
evidence of effective drowsy driving countermeasures. Contractors have 
conducted focus group interviews with candidate target groups and 
determined potential informational content, motivational approaches, 
communications strategies, and evaluation protocols. Procedures for 
awarding grants to employers and organizations to assist in 
implementation and evaluation are being readied for announcement by 
late Spring, 1998. Development of draft program materials is underway 
and should be ready for pilot test by Summer, 1998, and for 
distribution by Fall, 1998.
    Question. What is planned for fiscal year 1999, and how is this 
reflected in the budget request?
    Answer. During fiscal year 1999, NHTSA plans to award mini-grants 
to employers and organizations to assist in the implementation and 
evaluation of the educational program. During this time, the evaluation 
contractor will monitor implementation activities and assess outcomes 
related to the program's objectives. The materials developer will 
revise the materials, based on the evaluation results. The results and 
recommendations of the evaluation are expected by late Summer of 1999.
    The fiscal year 1996 and 1997 appropriations fully support the 
development and implementation of the program and the evaluation of its 
effectiveness. NHTSA's fiscal year 1999 budget request does not contain 
any funds for drowsy-driver education. The Agency will establish plans 
for funding future efforts in this area after reviewing results of the 
evaluation of the program currently under development.
    Question. What specific studies does NHTSA have ongoing regarding 
the interaction of fatigue and alcohol?
    Answer. NHTSA currently has no studies specific to the interaction 
of fatigue and alcohol. This cogent issue has certainly come up in 
discussions with other professionals and has been added to our Draft 
Strategic Plan for Behavioral Research in Traffic Safety. A study of 
this kind will be considered for inclusion in our execution plan to be 
developed interactively with our customers and partners in the Fall, 
1998.
    Question. What specific work products or publications have been 
issued or released as a result of the Committee's directions and 
support in this area?
    Answer. The expert panel convened by the National Centers on Sleep 
Disorders Research (NCSDR) completed a review of the ``state of 
knowledge'' regarding sleepiness and traffic safety. The panel's 
report, ``Drowsy Driving and Automobile Crashes,'' will be jointly 
published by NHTSA and NCSDR.
    In addition to a print version, the report will be available on the 
World Wide Web via both agencies' web sites. Both versions will be 
available in late Spring or early Summer, 1998.
                         research and analysis
    Question. The FHWA has recently conducted an in-depth review of its 
entire research and technology program. FHWA has developed detailed 
roadmaps of its programs and is beginning to discuss those plans with 
the highway safety community. When was the last time that NHTSA 
conducted a detailed review of its entire research and development 
program? When was the last time that NHTSA discussed its research plans 
with the broader community besides your advisory committee?
    Answer. NHTSA's research agenda is set on the basis of the agency's 
rulemaking priorities. The rulemaking agenda is published in the 
Federal Register for dissemination of the information publicly. The 
research plan developed by NHTSA is in support of the safety standards 
the agency promulgates. The review of NHTSA's research plan is 
routinely conducted during every budget cycle.
    The agency's discusses its R&D plans and research agendas with the 
public in several fora, including: quarterly public meetings where it 
discusses research findings and planned research activities; annual SAE 
meetings; and with the international research community through the 
International Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA) program under the 
collaboration of 16 countries participating in the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles (ESV) program, a program sponsored by NHTSA. The agency also 
participates in Department-wide planning and review coordination 
efforts on an ongoing basis. NHTSA also has a Web page where highlights 
of the research agenda can be found, and these are accessible to all 
interested parties from whom we receive comments periodically on our 
programs.
    In addition, NHTSA conducted a review of its entire R&D program 
during CY 1997.
    Question. Please provide data on the amount of cost sharing 
received for the entire R&D program for each of the last three years, 
braking out separately the amount received for the NADS.
    Answer. The agency's best estimate for the amount of R&D cost 
sharing that has been achieved during the last three years exceeds $75 
million per year; however, the precise amount is unknown as the agency 
has been provided prototype hardware and test results which do not have 
assigned dollar values from the private sector in a number of areas of 
crashworthiness research.
    Furthermore, in fiscal year 1996 NHTSA received cost sharing 
commitments for the NADS program of $15.15 million. This consisted of 
$11.53 million from the University of Iowa and $3.62 million from TRW. 
In fiscal year 1998, Freightliner Corporation committed to providing 
cost sharing which NHTSA values at approximately $300 thousand.
    Question. What efforts has NHTSA pursued to increase the amount of 
cost sharing?
    Answer. NHTSA has provided comprehensive technical briefings on the 
NADS capabilities to major commands within the U.S. Army in an attempt 
to interest them in supporting the project. The agency has also carried 
out a mailing solicitation to major corporations within the commercial 
truck manufacturing industry.
    Additionally, in the safety systems area, the greatest cost sharing 
has been achieved is the development of advanced air bag technology. 
Here, the agency has established cooperative research programs with a 
major restraint system supplier and with other groups that support the 
suppliers. Also, the agency has been the recipient of advanced 
prototype technologies from the American Automobile Manufacturers 
Association and has been supplied hardware by the Association of 
International Automobile Manufacturers. Other cost sharing has been 
achieved in the area of advanced glazing to prevent occupant ejection. 
Here, the agency is working with a major glazing supplier in a 
cooperative research effort.
    Question. FHWA's RTCG for safety is seeking to design that agency's 
safety R&D agenda to fund primarily those projects that would result in 
substantial improvements in highway safety. Have you considered 
redesigning the research agenda towards this same objective? What would 
be the costs and benefits of pursuing such an approach?
    Answer. NHTSA's research and development agenda is totally focused 
on improving automobile safety, and it is developed after careful 
evaluation of the highway safety problem as indicated by an analysis of 
the highway crash data the agency collects. The main objective of 
NHTSA's research is to define the safety problem, develop suitable 
countermeasures, and show their feasibility and cost effectiveness in 
solving the safety problem. Much of NHTSA's research findings forms the 
basis for developing the behavioral issues and safety standards which 
NHTSA promulgates.
    NHTSA seeks advice on its research agenda from the Motor Vehicle 
Safety Research Advisory Committee comprised of motor vehicle industry 
experts, academics, medical doctors, and others appointed by the 
Secretary of Transportation and through other outreach means such as 
the Federal Register. Thus, NHTSA's R&D agenda is peer reviewed and is 
in many respects developed in the same manner as FHWA's R&D agenda.
    Question. What selection criteria have you developed to ensure that 
your research agenda is focused on topics that address the most 
significant safety problems?
    Answer. The research priorities are mostly defined on the basis of 
NHTSA's rulemaking agenda. The rulemaking agenda is based on the most 
predominant safety problems that need to be addressed. For instance, 
crosscutting research such as that related to crash injury mechanisms 
and injury criteria development is additionally undertaken to support 
the agency's rulemaking priorities. Most of NHTSA's research is geared 
towards application of engineering principles and other scientific 
principles in developing safety countermeasure programs that are 
designed to solve specific safety problems. Therefore, the selection 
criteria for NHTSA's research are guided by the definition of the 
safety problems and the expected effectiveness of the solutions.
    Question. When was the last time that NAS comprehensively reviewed 
the scope and direction of your research program?
    Answer. To the best of our knowledge, the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) has never conducted a comprehensive review of the scope 
and direction of the entire NHTSA R&D program. From time to time, NHTSA 
has participated in several program reviews with NAS, where NAS 
reviewed individual research topics. An example of one of these reviews 
is Estimating Demand for the National Advanced Driving Simulator, 1995. 
NHTSA also supports NAS which includes approximately $80,000 funding 
per year.
    Question. Which aspects did the Academy review?
    Answer. Reviews performed by the National Academy of Sciences have 
been limited to individual projects such as the vehicle size and weight 
study and the implications of the National Speed Limit.
    Question. What are your views on NAS conducting a comprehensive 
review and analysis? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
    Answer. NHTSA is of the view that the oversight brought on by the 
Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee, its subcommittees, 
and working groups and the peer review it receives from the safety 
community, the motor vehicle industry, and the international safety 
community are comprehensive and thorough and any additional review 
would be unnecessary. NHTSA has several internal needs for R&D efforts 
to support its Federal motor vehicle safety standards and vehicle 
defect investigations; hence, some of the research work is dictated by 
internal requirements.
    The research plans and budget are thoroughly reviewed by various 
parts of the agency before they are finalized. Thus, these plans 
undergo a level of scrutiny similar to any organization in the public 
or private sector.
    NHTSA does not see any advantages in adding an additional 
oversight. Disadvantages include duplication of effort and diverting 
the agency's meager resources to oversight with no concomitant 
benefits.
    Question. What are some of the policy resource allocation, or 
management issues that a NAS panel might explore that would be of 
benefit to NHTSA in shaping its R&D program for the next decade?
    Answer. The involvement of the National Academy of Sciences panel 
in reviews of major high visibility research programs involving large 
budget allocations such as the Intelligent Transportation Systems 
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative Programs would be of value.
                    crashworthiness research program
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated 
and the amount actually appropriated for the two programs in the 
Crashworthiness Research Budget for fiscal year 1996, 1997 and 1998.
    Answer. The requested information for the Safety Systems 
Engineering and Analysis Division (SSEA) and the National 
Transportation Biomechanics Research Center (NTBRC) in the 
Crashworthiness Research Program follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Fiscal year                     Request    Appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Systems:
    1996.....................................        6,000         5,910
    1997.....................................        6,500         6,488
    1998.....................................        8,338         8,338
NTBRC:
    1996.....................................        7,450         5,890
    1997.....................................        7,450         7,437
    1998.....................................       10,587        10,587
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table for both of those programs, 
showing how all of the funds requested for fiscal year 1999 are 
intended to be spent, and please include in that table a comparison 
with the amounts provided for similar activities during fiscal year 
1998. On a separate page, please justify the need for the requested 
increases. Please demonstrate the continuity or completion of specific 
research projects in your answer.
    Answer. The following table summarizes the budget allocations for 
the major research areas of the Crashworthiness Research Program, the 
Safety Systems Engineering and Analysis Division (SSEA) and the 
National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center (NTBRC):

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year--
                     Activity                      ---------------------
                                                       1998       1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Systems:
    Upgrade Frontal Crash Protection..............      1,365      1,100
    Upgrade Rollover Crash Protection.............      1,100      1,100
    Vehicle Aggressiveness and Compatibility......      1,300      1,677
    Upgrade Side Crash Protection.................      1,338      1,300
    Upgrade Seat and Restraint Systems............      1,385      1,100
    Advanced Air Bag Research.....................      1,850      2,431
    International Harmonization Research..........  .........      1,850
                                                   ---------------------
      Totals......................................      8,338     10,558
                                                   =====================
NTBRC:
    Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network       2,100      3,010
     (CIREN)......................................
    Impact Injury Research........................      2,200      2,200
    Human Injury Simulation and Analysis..........      1,937      2,170
    Crash Test Dummy Development..................      2,100      2,300
    Biomechanics of Air Bag Injuries..............      2,250      3,000
                                                   ---------------------
      Totals......................................     10,587     12,680
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The request includes $1.850 million which is essential to launch 
the new initiative in International Harmonized Research Activities. 
This critical initiative will enable the Office of Crashworthiness 
Research to initiate the development of harmonized test procedures, 
test requirements and a harmonized dummy for pedestrian protection. 
Research will be conducted for the development of harmonized injury 
criteria and an associated crash test dummy, harmonized test procedures 
including an approach to the offset crash test condition and for side 
impact crashes, and (if possible) harmonized test performance 
requirements. Research will examine the development of a harmonized 
test procedure for evaluating vehicle aggressivity/compatibility. 
Finally research will evaluate the complexities of the existing safety 
standards promulgated around the world, identify those standards for 
which some degree of harmonization is possible, and develop harmonized 
test procedures and/or agree to the functional equivalency of testing 
procedures.
    The following major initiatives will be expanded with the proposed 
increases in NTBRC's budget:
    CIREN: $3,010,000 (+$910,000).--Increase the number of 
participating trauma centers from four to seven to continue the current 
data collection efforts including the three trauma centers currently 
funded through the General Motors Settlement Agreement. Continue 
medical and engineering data collection, documentation, and analysis of 
causes, conditions, and injury consequences in approximately 350 
selected crashes per year. Complete development and implementation of 
the CIREN Data Network.
    Human Injury Simulation and Analysis: $1,937,000 (+$233,000).--
Continue the development and validation of detailed finite element 
models of the human anatomy capable of predicting the extent and 
severity of human injury under impact conditions for the skull and 
brain, the neck, the thorax and abdomen, and the pelvis and lower 
extremities. Develop and verify detailed models of existing and 
developing dummy systems. Expand capabilities to simulate out-of-
position situations.
    Crash Test Dummy Development: $2,100,000 (+$200,000).--Complete 
prototype development of Advanced Frontal 50th Percentile Male Dummy 
and evaluate its performance to allow its integration into frontal 
crash protection research efforts. Complete development of Advanced 
Lower Extremity devices and introduce into research and testing 
efforts. Continue ``federalization'' and upgrading of existing dummies 
to qualify them for agency regulatory actions. Enhance biofidelity and 
injury sensing capabilities of the various child dummies. Complete 
development of prototype Advance Frontal 5th Percentile Female Dummy 
and begin evaluation phase. Continue the development of advanced injury 
sensing instrumentation development activities while continuing the use 
of existing instrumentation.
    Biomechanics of Air Bag Injuries: $3,000,000 (+$750,000).--Continue 
and expand efforts to ``federalize'' existing dummy systems for 
regulatory efforts to improve air bag performance. Continue and expand 
efforts to understand and quantify the mechanisms of injury prevalent 
in air bag loading situations with emphasis on out-of-position 
situations. Continue and expand efforts to model the human under air 
bag crash circumstances. Expand research activities to supplement the 
instrumentation and injury sensing capabilities of existing test 
devices.
    Question. What is the driving force behind the request for 
additional funds for international harmonization activities? Exactly 
how will those monies be used? What is the empirical basis for that 
request?
    Answer. Since the motor vehicle industry is increasingly becoming a 
global industry, international safety standards make sense; because, 
when standards are the same, addressing similar safety problems, 
vehicle designs need not differ from country to country. However, it is 
important that the safety standards that are developed provide the 
optimum level of safety. Since various countries have different 
regulatory procedures, achieving harmonized safety standards can only 
occur if the scientific bases for those standards are the same. 
Therefore, it is NHTSA's belief that world-wide harmonized research 
would form the foundation for any future harmonized safety regulations. 
At the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference in May 1996, in 
Australia, the Governmental focal points from North America, Europe, 
and the Asian-Pacific countries met and established an International 
Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA) Steering Committee. Several 
working groups under this Steering Committee were established with one 
country having the lead responsibility for planning and coordinating 
the research work. The United States has the lead in biomechanics 
research. Research tasks in several other major topics are to be 
carried out in different participating countries. It is the goal of the 
working groups to share the research findings and reach conclusions 
based on the results. The requested funding will allow NHTSA to conduct 
those research tasks which are agreed upon by the IHRA working groups 
to be carried out in the United States. NHTSA will be heavily involved 
in the IHRA research tasks in biomechanics, pedestrian safety, frontal 
offset crash safety, vehicle compatibility, and side impact protection. 
The funding request of $1.85 million will be the minimum that will be 
required in fiscal year 1999 under IHRA to supplement NHTSA's own 
research activities in the above topical areas. It is our belief that 
the research conducted under IHRA will lead to test procedures and 
injury criteria that will provide optimum vehicle safety in an 
efficient and consensus based manner.
    Question. Please break down the expected projects and associated 
amounts to be funded with the $1.850 million requested. What was the 
amount already spent or planned to be spent on comparable activities 
during fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998?
    Answer. Given below is a table showing the breakdown of the planned 
allocation of funds in fiscal year 1999 for conducting research by 
NHTSA under the Internationally Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA).

                        [In thousands of dollars]

                                                        Fiscal year 1999
        Research Topics                               Planned Allocation

Frontal Crash Protection..........................................   300
Vehicle Compatibility.............................................   500
Side Crash Protection.............................................   500
Pedestrian Protection.............................................   250
Crosscutting Research.............................................   300
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total....................................................... 1,850

    This critical initiative will enable the agency to initiate the 
development of harmonized test procedures, test requirements, and a 
harmonized dummy for pedestrian protection. Research will be conducted 
for the development of harmonized injury criteria and an associated 
crash test dummy, harmonized test procedures including an approach to 
the offset crash test condition and for side impact crashes, and (if 
possible) harmonized test performance requirements. Research will 
examine the development of a harmonized test procedure for evaluating 
vehicle aggressivity/compatibility. Finally, research will evaluate the 
complexities of the existing safety standards promulgated around the 
world, identify those standards for which some degree of harmonization 
is possible, and develop harmonized test procedures and/or agree to the 
functional equivalency of testing procedures.
    No funds were allocated to IHRA in fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
    Question. What is the view of the U.S. automobile industry 
regarding the international harmonization program?
    Answer. The automotive industry is on record as supportive of the 
international harmonization program and of a key agency criterion that 
international harmonization not lead to least common denominator 
standards. The manufacture of motor vehicles has evolved from a mostly 
domestic industry into a global one that is competing in a global 
market where safety and environmental regulations will continue to be 
nationally based. The harmonization of these regulations on a global 
scale has become a priority for the automobile industry. Thus the 
industry is very supportive of the agency's efforts towards the 
accomplishment of harmonized motor vehicle safety regulations. The 
industry has made several recommendations through the Transatlantic 
Business Dialogue concerning the regulatory process. The agency has 
been responsive to these recommendations by successfully negotiating a 
draft global agreement with the European Commission and the Japanese 
Ministry of Transport, on a process for the development of harmonized 
technical regulations to be subsequently adopted by the parties to the 
agreement. In response to industry's recommendation that functional 
equivalence be used as an interim measure while developing harmonized 
regulations, the agency has developed a process for the assessment of 
functional equivalence between a foreign regulation and the 
corresponding United States regulation and is using that process in 
responding to industry petitions. Finally, in response to the 
recommendation that new regulations be based on harmonized research 
data, the agency is actively and substantively involved in the 
International Harmonized Research Agenda which was agreed to at the 
Fourteenth International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles 
(ESV). Progress will be reported at the Fifteenth ESV in May, 1998.
                             safety systems
    Question. What is the analytical or empirical basis for the $10.555 
million requested in this area? How was that amount determined? How 
will those funds be allocated compared to the fiscal year 1998 
allocation?
    Answer. The Crashworthiness Research Safety Systems' request of 
$10.558 million continues test procedures and baseline vehicle 
evaluations. The request includes funds for vehicle and component 
countermeasure hardware development that will demonstrate the potential 
to advance Crashworthiness policies and regulations for various impact 
modes. Frontal, side, and rollover crashes account for most of the 
deaths and injuries to passenger vehicle occupants. Ejections, crashes 
involving pedestrians, and fires also cause death and injury. 
Aggressive air bag deployment has been found to be a source of injuries 
and fatalities to people seated in close proximity to the air bag and 
to out-of-position children and occupants who are in contact with the 
air bag at the start of deployment. Research will help determine which 
air bag design characteristics can best reduce these injuries in the 
near term. Improvements in vehicle structure and occupant compartment 
design, in combination with near term improvements in seat and 
restraint systems, require research in test procedures, biomechanics, 
and countermeasure development and evaluation. The comparative 
allocations during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year--
                     Activity                      ---------------------
                                                       1998       1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Systems:
    Upgrade Frontal Crash Protection..............      1,365      1,100
    Upgrade Rollover Crash Protection.............      1,100      1,100
    Vehicle Aggressiveness and Compatibility......      1,300      1,677
    Upgrade Side Crash Protection.................      1,338      1,300
    Upgrade Seat and Restraint Systems............      1,385      1,100
    Advanced Air Bag Research.....................      1,850      2,431
    International Harmonization Research..........  .........      1,850
                                                   ---------------------
      Totals......................................      8,338     10,558
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please describe recent advances in frontal crash 
protection resulting from your program.
    Answer. The frontal crash protection research program is focused on 
mitigating the fatalities and injuries that will continue to occur each 
year even after full implementation of air bags in cars and light 
trucks and vans. The latest agency estimates are that frontal impacts 
in an all air bag fleet may still account for over 8,000 fatalities and 
over 120,000 moderate to severe injuries each year. The most recent 
finding in the research for improved frontal crash protection has been 
the continued support for the development of a test procedure that 
simulates a moving car-to-moving car oblique, frontal offset crash. 
This condition has been based on an analysis of the 1988 to 1996 
National Automotive Sampling System data. Ongoing research is examining 
a number of potential test procedures that could be used for simulating 
this crash condition.
    Question. What new research has been performed with the additional 
funds allocated last year?
    Answer. The additional funds ($1.850 million) that were allocated 
last year were used to enhance the ongoing research program for the 
development and evaluation of advanced air bag systems that build upon 
the short-term technological solutions to air bag problems identified 
in the field experience, including those of injuries resulting from 
aggressive air bag deployments (especially to children). Advanced air 
bag systems generically can be divided into increasing levels of 
complexity. Generally, the advanced systems automatically suppress or 
tailor the air bag deployment using occupant and/or crash variables to 
reduce or prevent injuries caused by the air bag. The research has been 
focused to identify the necessary performance characteristics of an 
advanced air bag system that reduce or prevent air bag induced 
injuries. Based on these characteristics, a comprehensive set of tests 
is being defined to ensure the advanced air bag system will not cause 
injury. Further, these tests are being developed to ensure the air bag 
system provides effective restraint for normally seated occupants over 
the range of occupant sizes, while mitigating inflation injuries to 
out-of-position occupants. As part of this effort, research includes 
additional out-of-position occupant tests (static and dynamic) to 
evaluate and monitor the performance of new generation and advanced air 
bag systems. The research includes reconstructions of crashes in which 
the air bag deployment caused either fatalities or severe injuries. The 
results from these tests are being used to evaluate injury criteria for 
child dummies in out-of-position and other automotive environments.
    Question. Please calculate the amount of cost sharing obtained from 
the private sector for both the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 
program for each of the following research areas: tailorable inflators, 
adjustable anchorages, side inflatable cushions, improved seat designs, 
energy absorbing surfaces, pre-crash sensing, and vehicle aggressivity.
    Answer. The agency's best estimate for the amount of cost sharing 
that has been achieved during fiscal years 1997 and 1998 exceeds $1.5 
million; however, the precise amount is unknown as the agency has been 
provided prototype hardware and test results from the private sector in 
a number of areas of crashworthiness research.
    The area in which the greatest cost sharing has been achieved is 
the development of advanced air bag technology. Here, the agency has 
established cooperative research programs with a major restraint system 
supplier and with other groups that support the suppliers. Also, the 
agency has been the recipient of advanced prototype technologies from 
the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, and has been 
supplied hardware by the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers. Other cost sharing has been achieved is in the area of 
advanced glazing to prevent occupant ejection. Here, the agency is 
working with a major glazing supplier in a cooperative research effort.
    Question. What are the specific research avenues or questions you 
are pursuing regarding the following topics: frontal crash protection, 
advanced air bag technology, pedestrian protection, ejection reduction, 
and advanced occupant protection?
    Answer. The frontal crash protection research program is focused on 
mitigating the fatalities and injuries that will continue to occur each 
year even after full implementation of air bags in cars and light 
trucks and vans. The latest agency estimates are that frontal impacts 
in an all air bag fleet may still account for over 8,000 fatalities and 
over 120,000 moderate to severe injuries each year. The research will 
upgrade the injury criteria and test devices, develop test procedures 
for evaluation of occupant injury, and develop countermeasures to 
improve the occupant safety.
    The advanced air bag technology research program is focused on 
developing the technical bases for the specification of vehicle 
performance requirements which will lead to the elimination of 
fatalities and reduce the severity of the injuries resulting from 
aggressive air bag deployment to children and adults and to infants in 
rear facing child safety seats, and simultaneously optimize the 
benefits to normally seated restrained occupants while also restoring 
the full protection for unbelted adults in high severity crashes. 
Research is focused on addressing the injuries and fatalities due to 
aggressive air bag deployment and will include the analysis of 
injuries/fatalities with air bags, analysis of fatalities to children 
under 15 with air bags, and analysis of injuries/fatalities to drivers, 
to specifically identify cases of air bag aggressiveness contributing 
to the injuries/fatalities; will include laboratory testing to evaluate 
aggressiveness of new-generation air bags, will assess advanced air bag 
technology that provides protection over a wide range of conditions, 
and will develop test procedures for evaluating air bag system 
performance over the range of conditions.
    Pedestrian crash injury reduction research is focused on three 
areas. Analysis of pedestrian crash data is being conducted to 
determine the influence of current vehicle design on contact locations 
and injury severities in pedestrian crashes. This will lead to research 
on countermeasure development. Test devices which comply with 
International Standards Organization requirements for pedestrian head 
and leg impact protection are currently under development. NHTSA is 
working with the International Harmonization Research Activities 
pedestrian safety working group in an effort to develop and implement a 
harmonized and coordinated research program with Europe, Japan, 
Australia, and North America.
    There are several current research programs aimed at reducing 
occupant ejections. One of these is examining the feasibility of using 
advanced glazings in side windows to act as safety nets to reduce 
ejection, while minimizing the potential for these glazings to produce 
head, neck, and lacerative injuries. The other is exploring whether the 
Head Protection System currently being installed in some BMW models, 
which was designed to provide head protection in side impacts, can also 
be effective in reducing ejections in rollovers. Also, an upgrade to 
the safety standard regarding door latch strength is being considered, 
which would reduce the incidence of door openings and thereby the 
potential of occupant ejections.
    The advanced occupant protection research program is focused on 
providing the necessary scientific bases for the development of 
improved occupant protection devices beyond the scope of those 
currently used in automobiles. The approach is to design studies which 
focus on the development of occupant protection concepts in isolation 
(i.e., developed not as an integral part of a larger system 
development). If successfully developed in laboratory tests, the 
concept would then be integrated into other projects developing an 
entire safety system. Generally, those areas of design improvement 
known to be under current near term development by industry will be 
watched closely and encouraged.
    Question. Other than the issuance of the final rule allowing 
depowering of specified air bag systems, please further demonstrate the 
integration of NHTSA's research program and the regulatory program.
    Answer. The agency anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 1, 1998, to provide protection above that 
provided by the March 19, 1997, action allowing new-generation air bag 
systems. As part of the research to support this pending NPRM, the 
agency has continued and enhanced its extensive Special Crash 
Investigations program to monitor the new generation air bag system 
fleet performance, has initiated efforts to introduce a variety of 
dummy sizes and associated injury criteria (both child and fifth 
percentile female) into the agency's compliance test procedures, and 
has initiated the development of new test procedures and associated 
performance requirements that lead to the introduction of air bag 
systems that provide benign deployment to out-of-position occupants 
and/or suppress deployment of the air bag when deployment is determined 
to hazardous to the occupant. Research staff have worked closely with 
agency staff to ensure that the necessary support is provided.
    Question. Please provide an updated discussion on the progress made 
in implementing the strategic plan for heavy truck research.
    Answer. NHTSA's Strategic Plan for Heavy Vehicle Safety Research 
was prepared in 1995, at the request of Congress. It laid out proposed 
research programs through fiscal year 2000, to address identified heavy 
vehicle safety issues. Since 1995, the level of appropriated funding in 
the heavy vehicle area has not matched the needs identified in the 
plan. While significant progress in the heavy vehicle research area has 
been made, much of the planned research still remains undone. That is 
the major reason for the increased level of funding in the fiscal year 
1999 budget request for heavy vehicle research.
    Question. Please describe how you ensure that NHTSA's research does 
not overlap with that conducted by the private sector.
    Answer. While the agency cannot know the details of all research 
being conducted by all private companies, our staff maintains constant 
liaison with professional organizations such as the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE), ITS America, and the Truck Maintenance 
Council (TMC) of the American Trucking Associations. Through these 
contacts as well as a ongoing dialogues with heavy vehicle 
manufacturers and research organizations, NHTSA is aware of nearly 
everything that is being researched in the area of heavy vehicle 
safety.
                              biomechanics
    Question. Why is it of critical importance to increase the number 
of CIREN centers?
    Answer. The Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) 
is a unique collaboration of medical practitioners, engineers, and 
other related professions. Working with seven multidisciplinary, 
geographically diverse trauma centers, the agency hopes to learn more 
about the dynamics of highway crashes. What's more, these real world 
laboratories are linked by a computer network that allows researchers 
to review crash and injury data and share their particular expertise. 
The request includes funding which is essential to incorporate three 
additional CIREN centers, previously funded from the General Motors 
(GM) settlement funds, into the CIREN system to allow the agency to 
continue detailed biomechanical analyses of selected CIREN cases to 
validate the injury criteria being developed by the agency against real 
world crash situations. Funding for the three additional centers is 
essential for two reasons: (1) Funding from the GM settlement funds 
expires in March 1999. (2) The three CIREN centers funded through the 
GM settlement are critical pieces that supplement the input to make the 
CIREN network national in nature. They also provide the necessary 
expertise in the areas of specialities of burn trauma (Michigan), 
cervical spine trauma (Harborview), and emergency medical services 
interaction in multiple disciplines (San Diego).
    Question. In Senate Report 104-325, NHTSA was urged to redouble its 
efforts to obtain cost-sharing commitments with other organizations 
which benefit from the national center. What progress has been made?
    Answer. The National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center 
(NTBRC) has pursued a variety of cooperative/collaborative efforts with 
various governmental groups. Within the Department of Transportation, 
the NTBRC is developing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal 
Aviation Administration to pursue joint research efforts that study 
mechanisms of injury under crash conditions of interest to both 
agencies such as lateral impact. Additionally, the joint efforts of the 
NTBRC and the US Army and US Navy will be studying head injury 
mechanisms.
    Question. Is NHTSA the only DOT modal administration requesting 
funds for the biomechanics program? How have other modal 
administrations used research results obtained from your investment?
    Answer. As far as NHTSA is aware, the National Transportation 
Biomechanics Research Center's (NTBRC) program is the primary 
biomechanics effort underway in the Department. NTBRC's research 
results are used primarily by NHTSA in developing automotive safety 
regulations. However, the Federal Highway Administration has used 
injury criteria and dummies for enhancements in the safety of the 
highway. While NTBRC has had preliminary discussions with the Federal 
Aviation Administration on efforts of common interest and is currently 
developing a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies to 
pursue such efforts, NHTSA is unaware of any other agency directly 
using the research results obtained from NHTSA's investment.
    Question. The Biomechanics program has been growing rapidly during 
the last few years. How has that growth been managed? What outside peer 
review of the program have you received?
    Answer. The NHTSA relies on two methods for managing the 
biomechanics program of the National Transportation Biomechanics 
Research Center (NTBRC). The primary management tool used is the 
agency's internal management process that insures that the efforts the 
Center proposes and pursues are addressing the agency's needs in an 
appropriate and timely manner. Peer review of NTBRC research is 
achieved through both NHTSA's Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory 
Committee's Biomechanics Working Group and through NHTSA's quarterly 
research meetings with the automotive industry, suppliers, and other 
interested parties where the scope, direction, and research findings of 
the NTBRC program are presented and comments and suggestions solicited.
    Question. Please break down in extensive detail how the fiscal year 
1999 funds will be used, being certain to indicate key projects and 
specific funding levels, and compare this breakdown to planned fiscal 
year 1998 expenditures and projects.
    Answer. The following table summarizes the budget allocations for 
the major National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center research 
areas for both fiscal year 1998 and 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year--
                                         -------------------------------
                                               1998            1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIREN...................................      $2,100,000      $3,010,000
Impact Injury Research..................       2,200,000       2,200,000
Human Injury Simulation and Analysis....       1,937,000       2,170,000
Crash Test Dummy Dev....................       2,100,000       2,300,000
Biomechanics of Air Bag Injuries........       2,250,000       3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following major initiatives will be pursued in each of the 
above research areas:
    Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN).--Increase in 
the number of participating traumas center from four to seven to 
continue the current data collection efforts by including the three 
trauma centers currently funded by the General Motors Settlement 
Agreement. Continue medical and engineering data collection, 
documentation, and analysis of causes, conditions, and injury 
consequences in selected crashes. Complete development and 
implementation of the CIREN Data Network.
    Impact Injury Research.--Continue studies of neck injury mechanisms 
and validate neck models with emphasis on airbag loading conditions. 
Continue initiatives to study and quantify skull and brain injury 
mechanisms. Continue and expand studies to advance knowledge of 
pediatric impact injuries to the head, neck, and chest. Continue 
studies of thoracic injury mechanisms for out-of-position occupants. 
Continue side impact injury and response studies. Continue initiative 
to optimize performance of belt/bag restraints.
    Human Injury Simulation and Analysis.--Continue the development and 
validation of detailed finite element models of the human anatomy 
capable of predicting the extent and severity of human injury under 
impact conditions for the skull and brain, the neck, the thorax and 
abdomen, and the pelvis and lower extremities. Develop and verify 
detailed models of existing and developing dummy systems.
    Crash Test Dummy Development.--Complete prototype development of 
Advanced Frontal 50th percentile Male Dummy and evaluate its 
performance and integrate the device into frontal crash protection 
research. Complete development of Advanced Lower Extremity devices and 
introduce them into research and testing efforts. Continue 
``federalization'' and upgrading of existing dummies to qualify them 
for agency regulatory actions. Enhance biofidelity and injury sensing 
capabilities of the various child dummies. Complete development of 
prototype Advance Frontal 5th Percentile Female Dummy and begin 
evaluation phase. Continue the development of advanced injury sensing 
instrumentation while continuing the use of existing techniques.
    Biomechanics of Airbag Injuries.--Continue and expand efforts to 
``federalize'' existing dummy systems for regulatory efforts for 
improving airbag performance. Continue and expand efforts to understand 
and quantify the mechanisms of injury prevalent in airbag loading 
situations with emphasis on out-of-position situations. Continue and 
expand efforts to model the human under airbag crash circumstances. 
Expand research activities to supplement the instrumentation and injury 
sensing capabilities of existing test dummies and devices.
    Question. Please discuss the research results that have emanated 
from the trauma centers during the last few years.
    Answer. Though the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network 
(CIREN)--funded by NHTSA and General Motors--is still in its infancy, 
much has already been learned. The agency and its CIREN partners have 
gained in-depth knowledge on injuries that are caused by safety devices 
themselves, including shoulder and lap restraints and air bags. An 
understanding of how real world crashes compare to the outcomes 
predicted in research through controlled crash tests is beginning to 
emerge. The agency has significantly improved its understanding of 
injuries affecting infants and children; however, the number of cases 
that have been acquired is small, and many more are needed for in-depth 
analysis.
    Each member of the network is a regional Level 1 trauma center. All 
are teaching institutions affiliated with a major university. Each 
center is staffed by surgeons, research clinicians, crash 
investigators, and data coordinators. Data collected by each of the 
centers is fed into a computer network that was developed by the Volpe 
National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, MA. The computer 
network allows researchers to review data and share expertise. In 
addition to in-depth crash and injury research, each center trains 
hospital, law enforcement, and emergency response personnel. Among 
other things, the training helps identify restraint-related injuries 
that may not be readily apparent. The agency is also learning a great 
deal more about survivors and the consequences and costs of the long-
term effects of injuries.
    Question. Which trauma centers were funded in fiscal year 1997, 
fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999? For what amounts?
    Answer.

                              CIREN BUDGET
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                                        --------------------------------
                                            1997       1998       1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Lehman Injury Research Center,     290,000    652,000    655,000
 Miami, FL.............................
U. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD..........    230,000    460,000    460,000
Children's National Medical Center,      .........    515,000    500,000
 Washington, DC........................
U. of Medicine & Dentistry, Newark, NJ.    230,000    450,000    450,000
Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA.  .........  .........    250,000
San Diego County Trauma System, San      .........  .........    250,000
 Diego, CA.............................
U. of Michigan Medical Center, Ann       .........  .........    250,000
 Arbor, MI.............................
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................    750,000  2,077,000  2,815,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    crash avoidance research program
    Question. Please provide a table indicating the amount appropriated 
and the amount actually allocated for the various subprograms of the 
Crash Avoidance Research Program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
    Answer. The following table shows the amounts requested and 
appropriated to the various subprogram areas for fiscal year 1996 
through fiscal year 1998, and the corresponding amounts requested for 
fiscal year 1999:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal year 1996    Fiscal year 1997    Fiscal year 1998    Fiscal
                                           ------------------------------------------------------------   year
                  Program                                                                                 1999
                                             Request   Enacted   Request   Enacted   Request   Enacted   request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Behavior & Performance.............  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........       800
Brake Systems SPS Support.................  ........  ........     2,000       737       800       500       300
Handling & Stability SPS Support..........  ........  ........     1,000       250       200       500       500
Visibility SPS Support....................  ........  ........       500        13  ........  ........       248
Tires.....................................  ........  ........       500  ........  ........  ........  ........
Outreach SPS Support......................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........       100
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................  ........  ........     4,000     1,000     1,000     1,000     1,948
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table for the various subprograms of the 
Crash Avoidance Research Program, showing how all of the funds 
requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please 
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for similar 
activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the 
need for the requested increases.
    Answer. The following table shows the amounts allocated to the 
various subprogram areas for fiscal year 1998, and the corresponding 
amounts requested for fiscal year 1999.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year--
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       1998       1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Behavior and Performance...................  .........        800
Brake Systems SPS Support.........................        500        300
Handling & Stability SPS Support..................        500        500
Visibility SPS Support............................  .........        248
Outreach SPS Support..............................  .........        100
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................      1,000      1,948
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to fiscal year 1996, this area of research within NHTSA had 
an annual budget of about $7 million to $7.5 million per year. With the 
shift in emphasis to ITS, that amount was decreased to zero in fiscal 
year 1996, and it has been steady at $1 million per year for fiscal 
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. At that level of funding, the agency 
was not able to do research that is needed to support its ongoing 
safety research programs to support rulemaking initiatives in the area 
of crash avoidance. For example, in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, all of 
the available funding was consumed by research in only the two most 
critical areas, gaining a better understanding of driver's actions and 
vehicle responses during severe braking maneuvers with antilock brakes, 
and during maneuvers that result in rollover, particularly for sport 
utility vehicles. Research in the areas of lighting and visibility, 
other areas of vehicle handling and stability, or to answer other 
fundamental questions regarding driver behavior and performance 
relative to the driver/vehicle interface could not be done. The 
increased funding requested for fiscal year 1999 will also allow NHTSA 
to address enhancements to several vehicle subsystems (i.e., mirrors 
and rear signal lights) which may have potential for helping drivers 
avoid lane change and rear end crashes, respectively. The agency will 
also conduct human factors research to determine the best way to convey 
information to drivers that will be clearly and quickly understood, 
without confusion or ambiguity, and without creating too much workload 
for the driver.
    Question. What progress has NHTSA made in implementing the five-
year strategic plan for ITS crash avoidance research that was requested 
by the Committee?
    Answer. Good progress is being made in the implementation of the 
plan. Operational tests of Intelligent Cruise Control (ICC) and 
Automatic Collision Notification (ACN) systems are nearing completion. 
Preliminary results indicate that both of these systems provide 
positive benefits. Users of the ICC system have suggested some features 
where improvement is possible, but in general both systems are well 
received by the users. Negotiations for implementation of an 
operational test of a rear-end crash avoidance system are underway. The 
ICC work is a major part of the foundation for this next operational 
test. Similarly, the results from the ACN test are a major contributor 
to the NHTSA plan for improving end-to-end health care associated with 
motor vehicle crashes. Work in other problem areas such as drowsy 
drivers, lane change crash avoidance, and heavy vehicle stability is 
continuing as outlined in the plan. The NHTSA leadership reflected in 
this plan is also being capitalized upon in the broader IVI program. 
Thus, other ITS program areas will benefit from the lessons learned 
while implementing this plan.
    Question. What percent or portion of the IVI program is likely to 
be allocated towards crash avoidance technologies in passenger 
vehicles?
    Answer. Decisions on distribution of IVI funds between the four 
platforms described in the Request for Information (light vehicles, 
commercial vehicles, transit vehicles, and specialty vehicles) have not 
been made. Input from commenters to the RFI are still being evaluated.
    Question. What progress has NHTSA made in working with automobile 
manufacturers to encourage them to incorporate crash avoidance 
technologies into the U.S. car fleet?
    Answer. NHTSA continues to work cooperatively with the motor 
vehicle industry on the development of improved understanding of the 
necessary performance of crash avoidance systems. A prime example of 
this work is the project being done with the Crash Avoidance Metrics 
Partnership (CAMP). The members of CAMP are General Motors and Ford 
Motor Company. This project is developing test procedures and other 
approaches to objectively evaluate the performance of rear-end crash 
avoidance systems. The proposed Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) is 
also a program that will heavily involve partnership between the 
Government and automobile manufacturers and their suppliers. NHTSA 
considers IVI as an essential step in facilitating deployment of crash 
avoidance systems and other advanced technologies. Based on 
interactions associated with the CAMP project and other contacts, we 
believe that manufacturers are actively developing crash avoidance 
products, but at this time have not announced any product plans.
    Question. When do you expect various ITS crash avoidance 
technologies to be incorporated into new cars?
    Answer. We believe that the first crash avoidance products to be 
introduced will be technologies to avoid rear-end crashes. It appears 
from the trade-press that a precursor to this introduction will be the 
introduction of Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC). ACC systems have been 
introduced in Japan and Mercedes Benz has announced that they expect to 
introduce an ACC system in Europe later this year. We believe other 
crash avoidance products will be introduced as experience is gained 
with the initial systems. The rate and schedule for these introductions 
is not predictable, but we believe that it is realistic to expect 
introduction of systems for addressing rear-end, lane change, and road 
departure crashes, as well as systems that address driver drowsiness 
and vision enhancement within the next 10 years.
    Question. Please discuss the progress you have made in areas of ABS 
and rollover crashes.
    Answer. NHTSA began a three-year Light Vehicle ABS Research program 
plan in early 1997 in coordination with the Motor Vehicle Safety 
Research Advisory Council's ABS Working Group. The objectives of the 
program are as follows: (1) to determine the reason for the increase in 
single-vehicle crashes for four-wheel, ABS-equipped cars; and (2) to 
determine whether this crash trend occurs for vehicles with newer 
generations of ABS and/or light trucks as they transition from rear-
wheel to four-wheel Antilock Brake Systems.
    Program tasks cover the following areas: ABS effectiveness based on 
crash data analysis; drivers experiences with and expectations about 
ABS; ABS hardware performance testing; and ABS human factors studies.
    To date, three-fourths of the ABS hardware performance testing has 
been completed. The purpose of the test track study is to evaluate 
present-day ABS by measuring braking performance over a broad range of 
driving conditions. Preliminary results indicate that ABS improved 
vehicle stability in adverse braking conditions by allowing the driver 
to maintain directional control on most test surfaces. However, ABS 
hardware performance degradation has occurred, universally, on loose 
gravel surfaces.
    In the area of human factors, the ABS studies are to examine driver 
braking and steering behavior in crash-imminent situations--addressing 
the theory that driver behavior may be contributing to crashes of ABS-
equipped cars. To assess drivers' collision avoidance behavior using 
conventional and antilock brakes, an intersection incursion scenario is 
to be performed on a driver simulator and test-track for dry and wet 
pavement conditions.
    Overall, preliminary findings have not yet revealed any single-
cause for the increase in single-vehicle, run-off-road crashes. Results 
indicate that various issues (such as, human factors, ABS system logic, 
etc.) must be addressed and warrants further investigation. For 
example, drivers' reaction to pedal feedback, drivers' ability to 
perform avoidance maneuvers, etc. still need to be assessed.
    NHTSA also has an ongoing Light Vehicle Rollover Research program. 
This program's primary focus has been on-road untripped rollovers. To 
date seven maneuvers have been investigated using three sport utility 
vehicles. It has been decided that two of these maneuvers were 
promising to determine a vehicle's rollover propensity and merited 
further investigation. A repeatability study has begun and will 
continue through fiscal year 1998. A vehicle steering controller is 
being purchased to help reduce test variability due to driver 
influence. Testing of an additional twelve vehicles will be initiated 
during 1998 using refined test procedures based on the results of 
earlier and current testing. The Light Vehicle Rollover Research 
program will continue in fiscal year 1999. Additional testing will be 
performed using the twelve vehicles mentioned above. Additionally, in 
1999 NHTSA will have received the Variable Dynamics Test Vehicle (VDTV) 
from the contractor. One of the first programs planned for the VDTV is 
rollover research. The VDTV will be used to examine the effect of 
possible vehicle modifications on its rollover propensity and in 
developing suitable test procedures.
    Question. Why is an increase in funding in the driver/vehicle 
performance area necessary at this time?
    Answer. Prior to fiscal year 1996, this area of research within 
NHTSA had an annual budget of about $7 million to $7.5 million per 
year. With the shift in emphasis to ITS, that amount was decreased to 
zero in fiscal year 1996, and it has been steady at $1 million per year 
for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. At that level of funding, 
the agency was not able to do research that is needed to support its 
ongoing safety research programs to support rulemaking initiatives in 
the area of crash avoidance. For example, in fiscal years 1997 and 
1998, all of the available funding was consumed by research in only the 
two most critical areas, gaining a better understanding of driver's 
actions and vehicle responses during severe braking maneuvers with 
antilock brakes, and during maneuvers that result in rollover, 
particularly for sport utility vehicles. Research in the areas of 
lighting and visibility, other areas of vehicle handling and stability, 
or to answer other fundamental questions regarding driver behavior and 
performance relative to the driver/vehicle interface could not be done. 
The increased funding requested for fiscal year 1999 will also allow 
NHTSA to address enhancements to several vehicle subsystems (i.e., 
mirrors and rear signal lights) which may have potential for helping 
drivers avoid lane change and rear end crashes, respectively. The 
agency will also conduct human factors research to determine the best 
way to convey information to drivers that will be clearly and quickly 
understood, without confusion or ambiguity, and without creating too 
much workload for the driver.
    Question. Please describe the scope and nature of any possible cost 
overruns regarding the NADS.
    Answer. During the course of the last year, four Engineering Change 
Proposals (ECP) have been submitted by the NADS prime contractor TRW, 
which have increased the cost of the project. ECP No. 1 ($663,989) was 
for increased cost of the Harmony Image Generator being supplied by 
Evans & Sutherland. ECP No. 2 ($38,924) was to cover TRW's cost 
associated with resolving issues related to the NADS System Development 
Specification. ECP No. 3 ($273,516) was for cost associated with the 
purchase of the NADS real-time host computers as opposed to the 
originally proposed leasing arrangement. ECP No. 4 ($3,777,925) is to 
cover the cost of developing Scenario Definition and Control Software 
instead of using software offered by the University of Iowa (not part 
of their cost-sharing commitment), which TRW concluded would not meet 
NADS specifications. In addition, TRW is currently in the process of 
completing a cost and schedule re-baseline to complete the program, and 
it is anticipated that additional cost growth will occur in the areas 
of motion system hardware manufacture, image system display projectors, 
cab refit, software development, systems engineering, and program 
management. The amount of cost growth has not yet been provided to 
NHTSA by TRW.
    Question. What strategic planning is being conducted for the 
eventual use and scheduling of the NADS?
    Answer. NHTSA is creating a new Office of Human Centered Research 
within its Research and Development organization to consolidate 
research on driver performance, behavior, medical, health, and 
biomechanics issues. This Office will be the focus of future NADS 
related research within NHTSA and will also facilitate intermodal 
research from other administrations within the Department and other 
government agencies. The NADS Project Office is closely coordinating 
with the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) project to determine the 
extent of human factors research that will require use of the NADS. In 
addition, NHTSA and the University of Iowa are jointly developing a 
comprehensive Marketing Plan that will contain a strategy for 
approaching private sector research organizations that could benefit 
from the utilization of the NADS capabilities. The TRW marketing 
department has developed a professional quality promotional video on 
the NADS as well as a marketing brochure and has provided them to NHTSA 
at no cost to the program. These materials will be used to promote the 
unique research capabilities of the NADS to potential users at a 
variety of industry trade shows and government meetings and conferences 
during the preoperational phase of the NADS development.
    Question. Does NHTSA have a firm commitment from the JPO that the 
Agency will receive $22,640,000 of the IVI funds? Is this contract or 
LGOE monies?
    Answer. The original funding request of $22,640,000 includes 
$12,500,000 for research and development, $10,000,000 for operational 
tests, and $140,000 for publications and exhibits. Of these amounts, 
$140,000 would be LGOE and the remainder ($22,500,000) would be 
contract authority. The projects that would be funded under this 
request are now part of the IVI. NHTSA expects to be significantly 
involved in the IVI program. It is hoped that NHTSA will receive the 
requested funds when the IVI program gets underway.
    Question. NHTSA is requesting $2 million for a project entitled 
``Application of NADS.'' Please provide extensive details on this 
project and discuss the relationship of this project to your request 
for NADS.
    Answer. The request for NADS is for design and construction of 
NADS; whereas the $2 million request for application on NADS will fund 
the development of driving scenarios, visual data bases, and other 
application-specific elements of NADS use for driver behavior research 
and other research. The first ITS problem area that will be addressed 
will be the driver interface and refinement of the warning criteria for 
rear-end collisions.
    Question. Please delineate in extensive detail how the $1.392 
million requested for heavy vehicle research will be used, showing 
specific projects and associated amounts. Compare this research plan 
with fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 research projects and 
indicate funding amounts for each project.
    Answer. The $1.392 million requested for heavy vehicle research 
will be used to support the following programs:
Improved Stopping Capability --$850 thousand
    Assess the performance improvements and costs that would accrue 
from the use of air disc brakes combined with electronic control of 
brake modulation.
    Develop and test instrumented brake anchor pins to sense brake 
torque at individual wheels.
    Develop objective performance measures for electronically-
controlled air brakes in normal operation and in failure modes, to 
support rulemaking.
    Assess the braking performance of heavy trailers using 
electrically-actuated brakes.
    Develop objective test procedures that could be used to regulate 
the performance of such systems.
Improved Stability--$142 thousand
    Develop objective measures of performance of ABS on air-braked 
trailers, to support rulemaking.
Improved Visibility--$100 thousand
    Evaluate the safety benefits of rear cross-view mirrors for medium-
duty delivery trucks, to support rulemaking.
    Study the possibility of improving side and rear visibility by 
using on-vehicle video cameras.
Improved Crashworthiness--$100 thousand
    Investigate feasibility of countermeasures to reduce the severity 
of truck/car frontal collisions.
    Continue development of improved truck occupant protection systems.
Other Programs--$200 thousand
    Initiate studies to evaluate the potential of computer chips molded 
into truck tires to monitor tire pressures.
    Begin an assessment of the human factors aspects of uniform control 
and display locations in truck cabs.
    Study ways to better disseminate research findings to the heavy 
vehicle community.
    The following table shows the amounts allocated to the various 
subprogram areas for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, and the 
corresponding amounts requested for fiscal year 1999.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                                        --------------------------------
                                            1997       1998       1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Stopping Capability...........        299        225        850
Improved Stability.....................        150         50        142
Improved Visibility....................  .........         95        100
Improved Crashworthiness...............         46        131        100
Other Programs.........................        100         94        200
                                        --------------------------------
      Totals...........................        595        595      1,392
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How is this program to be coordinated with OMC 
activities?
    Answer. NHTSA maintains an ongoing dialog with OMC and other DOT 
agencies involved in heavy vehicle research, to ensure that the 
research programs are complementary and not duplicative. NHTSA has made 
a concerted effort in seeking and leveraging resources outside NHTSA to 
supplement the limited funding received for heavy truck research in 
previous years and has had some limited success.
    Question. What cost sharing was obtained in this area during fiscal 
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998?
    Answer. The following is the total funding obtained through cost 
sharing in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 for the heavy vehicle 
research programs:

Other Govt-Agencies:
    FHWA......................................................($136,400)
    TACOM (U.S. Army)......................................... (100,000)
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Subtotal................................................  236,400 
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Industry Organizations:
    AAMA (American Automobile Manufacturers Associatio..................
    RMA (Rubber Manufacturers Association)..............................
    Teamsters...........................................................
    National Research Council, Canada...................................
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Subtotal................................................  165,600 
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total...................................................  402,000 
              national center for statistics and analysis
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested 
and the amount actually appropriated for the six programs in the NCSA 
Budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
    Answer. The table that follows provides the dollar amounts by each 
of the six NCSA program areas for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
           NCSA Program Area            --------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality Analysis Reporting System
 (FARS):
    Requested..........................      5,000      5,251      5,242
    Appropriated.......................      4,585      5,242      5,242
National Automotive Sampling System
 (NASS):
    Requested..........................      9,500      9,675     13,800
    Appropriated.......................      9,200      9,658      9,658
Data Analysis:
    Requested..........................      2,000      2,100      1,935
    Appropriated.......................      1,415      1,635      1,935
State Data Program:
    Requested..........................      2,000      3,850      3,041
    Appropriated.......................      1,550      3,041      3,041
Special Crash Investigations (SCI):
    Requested..........................        315        331        556
    Appropriated.......................        315        331      1,031
Occupant Protection Use Survey:
    Requested..........................  .........        300        300
    Appropriated.......................  .........        300        300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table for each of the six programs in 
the NCSA Program, showing how all of the funds requested for fiscal 
year 1999 are intended to be spent; and please include in that table a 
comparison with the amount provided for comparable activities for 
fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the need for the 
requested increases.
    Answer. Separate tables presenting fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 
1999 funding by products and activities for each of the six NCSA 
programs follow:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year--
                                                   ---------------------
              Products and Activities                  1998       1999
                                                      budget    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality analysis reporting system:
    Cooperative Agreements........................      4,090      4,090
    Data Processing...............................        890        849
    Training......................................        237        249
    Quality Control...............................         25         25
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................      5,242      5,213
                                                   =====================
National Automotive Sampling System:
    Data Acquisition; Data Entry and Field Quality      6,301      6,650
     Control......................................
    Update and Replacement Training...............        300        330
    Database maintenance, Quality Control,              2,293      2,331
     Revision; Hard copy Storage and Distribution.
New Initiatives: Electronic Data Collection,              764        676
 Digital Imaging, Interactive Video Imaging,
 Internet/Web-site Development....................
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................      9,658      9,987
                                                   =====================
Data Analysis Products and Activities:
    Analytic Support..............................        500        500
    Database Augmentation.........................        125        125
    Sampling Support and Quality Control..........        660        660
    Customer Service Support......................        350        350
    Clinical Study of Injuries Associated with Air        300        289
     Bag Deployment...............................
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................      1,935      1,924
                                                   =====================
State Data Program:
    Data Acquisition and Processing...............        700        700
    State Data Enhancement; Technical Assistance..        175        300
    Research into Using and Evaluation of Linked    .........        175
     Medical Outcome and Crash Databases..........
    Promote Linked Medical Outcome and Crash Data         125        200
     among State and Local Agencies...............
    Assist State and Local Agencies in Data               595        249
     Linkage......................................
    Data Linkage Grant Program for New States.....      1,446      1,400
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................      3,041      3,024
                                                   =====================
Special Crash Investigations:
    Air Bag Crash Investigation Program (Fatal and        591        662
     Serious Injuries) Non-air Bag related Vehicle
     Safety Problems (School Bus, Defects,
     Alternative Fuels)...........................
    New Generation and Advanced Air Bag Systems...        326        761
    Database processing and Quality Control.......         58         90
    Case Automation and Storage...................         56         40
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................      1,031      1,553
                                                   =====================
National Occupant Protection Use Survey:
    Survey and Sample Design Revisions and Other           90  .........
     Survey Preparations..........................
    Conduct a National Occupant Protection Use            140        230
     Survey.......................................
    Tabulate, Analyze, and Publish Survey Results.         70         70
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................        300        300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost increase justification
            Special Crash Investigations
    In fiscal year 1998, NHTSA is continuing, through its Special Crash 
Investigations (SCI) program, investigation of real-world crashes that 
qualify for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program and non-air bag 
related vehicle safety problems (i.e., school bus crashworthiness and 
pedestrian safety problems, potential safety defects, and alternative 
fuel vehicles). The Agency has allocated $705,000 ($591,000 for data 
collection and $114,000 for maintaining and updating ADP operations) 
for this effort, which includes investigation of crashes involving 
fatal or seriously injured front seat occupants of vehicles equipped 
with new generation air bag systems. NHTSA is also spending $326,000, 
nearly one third of the funds allocated to the SCI program in fiscal 
year 1998, to investigate crashes involving vehicles equipped with new 
generation and advanced air bag systems that do not qualify under 
NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program. This funding level will allow 
the agency to investigate over 100 crashes involving vehicles equipped 
with new generation air bags where the air bag deployed and the 
occupant sustained minor, moderate or no injuries. These crashes will 
be investigated as part of an early assessment of the performance of 
new technologies introduced in motor vehicles.
    If funded at the fiscal year 1999 Budget Request level of 
$1,553,000, NHTSA will investigate, through its SCI program, over 325 
motor vehicle crashes that are of special interest. Approximately 
$792,000 ($662,000 for data collection and $130,000 for maintaining and 
updating ADP operations) will be used to investigate more than 125 
crashes that qualify for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program and 
non-air bag related vehicle safety problems (i.e., school bus 
crashworthiness and pedestrian safety problems, potential safety 
defects, and alternative fuel vehicles). NHTSA will also spend 
approximately $761,000, nearly half of its requested fiscal year 1999 
budget on new generation and advanced air bag systems. At this funding 
level, it is anticipated that more than 200 new generation and advanced 
air bag cases would be investigated. In fiscal year 1999, the SCI 
contracts will be renegotiated and cost-of-living and other labor and 
operational adjustments incorporated, resulting in an increased cost 
for SCI case investigations.
            National Automotive Sampling System
    In fiscal year 1999, funding will be used to collect nationally 
representative data on fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle traffic 
crashes. The vehicle-trauma details from 5,000 crash investigations 
from the NASS CDS and the national crash data from 56,000 police 
reported traffic crashes from the NASS GES form the foundation for a 
comprehensive understanding of the relationship between vehicle crash 
severity and occupant injury and the scope of the highway safety 
problem. The data will be collected and coded at 24 CDS sites, 60 GES 
sites, and two NASS Zone Centers. All NASS field contracts will be 
recompeted in fiscal year 1998. New contracts will be awarded during 
the first quarter of fiscal year 1999. The 3.4 percent increase above 
the fiscal year 1998 budget appropriation will be used to support 
renegotiated increases in labor costs of $349 thousand. The remaining 
funds to support renegotiated contracted increases are taken from costs 
savings in other line items.
    Question. How much does NCSA spend on distributing its products, 
including reports and statistical studies?
    Answer. The printing and distribution costs for NCSA reports are 
approximately $375,000.
    Question. Would it be more cost efficient to place these materials 
only on the Internet?
    Answer. NCSA maintains fifteen Fact Sheets on various motor vehicle 
crash statistics for 1996 (the latest year for which complete data are 
available), along with twenty of our latest technical reports and 
twenty-nine of our most recent Research Notes. In addition to these 
listings, NCSA's portion of the agency's website also provides an 
overview and program description for each of the following NCSA 
activities: the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the National 
Automotive Sampling System (NASS), the State Data Program, Special 
Crash Investigations (SCI) and the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System 
(CODES). Internet users are becoming an increasing share of NCSA's 
requests for statistical information and publications. Providing access 
to these materials via the Internet has enabled NCSA to decrease the 
numbers of printed publications that need to be made. Many requesters, 
however, continue to choose to request publications via telephone, fax-
on demand, and by mail.
    Question. What are you doing to move beyond the CODES project in 
the areas of injury assessment, costs, and relationships to the use of 
seat belts, air bags, and other engineering enhancements?
    Answer. Through CODES, states are being encouraged to link motor 
vehicle crash data to other relevant medical outcome data, including 
emergency department (ED) data when available. Linking these databases 
to motor vehicle registration, driver licensure, roadway data files and 
other traffic records databases expands the usefulness of all 
individual data files for highway safety purposes. States that have 
linked to other state data besides EMS and hospital discharge have been 
able to institutionalize their data linkage capabilities because of an 
expanded user base. CODES data have been used to study the differences 
in medical and treatment outcomes for helmeted vs. unhelmeted 
motorcyclists involved in crashes, the effect of air bags in reducing 
injuries to motor vehicle occupants in crashes, and to investigate the 
occurrence, frequency and costs of brain injuries and lower extremity 
injuries in all motor vehicle crashes. The have also provided a wealth 
of information to states on the costs and injuries associated with 
motor vehicle crashes of different types, for different driver 
involvements, and for roadway characteristics. CODES States have not 
yet been investigated to determine how they could support investigation 
of injuries associated with specific vehicles or types of vehicles. The 
primary reason is that few states collect the information necessary for 
these studies--the vehicle identification number (VIN). Without the 
VIN, it is not possible to identify which engineering enhancements are 
present in a vehicle or to classify accurately that vehicle by make or 
model. A NHTSA project, being conducted cooperatively with the FHWA and 
the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, 
will identify a Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) for 
reporting motor vehicle crash data. The collection of the VIN is 
included in that Model.
    Question. In addition to the CODES work, what are you doing to 
collect information on emergency department patients whose injuries 
result from motor vehicle crashes? Is the CIREN work sufficient to 
obtain a nationwide picture of new injury problems?
    Answer. Unfortunately, there is no one system currently operational 
that would provide NHTSA with a comprehensive, national picture of 
every potential new injury problem associated with motor vehicle 
crashes. Several sources are now being used to address NHTSA's need for 
comprehensive information on the nature and characteristics of injuries 
associated with specific motor vehicle crash and safety problems.
    CODES consists of crash, medical, and driver data linkages for 14 
states with expansion to an additional five or six expected in fiscal 
year 1998. States are being encouraged to link motor vehicle crash data 
to other relevant medical outcome data, including emergency department 
(ED) data, when available, and to obtain outpatient information from 
insurance files such as Medicaid, Medicare and Workers' Compensation 
insurance files. The CODES projects, along with other injury control 
efforts, have helped to encourage the development of emergency 
department data systems that are computerized and able to be linked to 
the crash data. When every state has developed data linkage 
capabilities, it will be possible to obtain population based data about 
victims of motor vehicle crashes, including information about the 
injuries that occur. CODES provides the state doing the linkage with a 
complete information on the occurrence of motor vehicle crash related 
injuries in that state.
    CIREN, once fully operational, will provide NHTSA with a small 
sample of detailed data on the nature and character of motor vehicle 
related injuries treated in the trauma centers comprising CIREN. 
Because CIREN involves only injuries treated at selected trauma 
centers, it does not comprise a random sampling of all potential motor 
vehicle related injuries and cannot be used to develop forecasts of 
national injury problems. CIREN may be used to study the mechanisms 
involved in distinguishing severe injuries from those that are not as 
severe when they are treated in a trauma center.
    In addition to CODES and CIREN, NHTSA has used data from the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) National Electronic Injury 
Surveillance System (NEISS) to determine the nature and magnitude of 
specific types of injuries that may not be related to a crash but may 
be motor vehicle related, e.g., radiator cap burns, battery explosions, 
power window and roof failure. CPSC's NEISS collects data on a 
nationally representative sample of consumer product-related injuries 
treated in hospital emergency rooms. NEISS is a 3-level system 
consisting of surveillance of emergency room injuries, follow-back 
telephone interviews with injured persons or witnesses, and 
comprehensive investigations with injured persons and/or witnesses. 
NEISS obtains data from a sample of 91 of the 6,127 hospitals 
nationwide with at least six beds that provide emergency care on a 
continuing 24-hour basis. The data on injuries associated with specific 
types of motor vehicle hazards are obtained on an as-needed basis 
through an agreement between NHTSA and CPSC to collect data on injuries 
associated with specific motor vehicle hazards that are non-crash 
related.
    Question. What are your views on the establishment of a national 
emergency department crash injury surveillance system that would 
collect data on injuries of victims of traffic crashes?
    Answer. The agency has funded studies in the past through data 
collection systems such as the National Electronic Injury Surveillance 
System (NEISS) and has found the data useful. We are currently giving 
careful consideration to conducting a pilot study of a broader system 
to collect emergency department data that would serve as a crash injury 
surveillance tool. The agency has met with several experts in this 
field to better understand how such a system could complement our 
existing crash injury data collection systems.
              partnership for a new generation of vehicles
    Question. How has the original intention or justification for 
NHTSA's investment in the PNGV changed?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1996, the goal was to ensure that the safety 
of occupants of the PNGV vehicle was not degraded. The goal of the 
fiscal years 1997 and 1998 efforts is to ensure that the overall safety 
of the fleet is not diminished with the introduction of the PNGV 
vehicle into the fleet. Thus, the justification for the funded program 
has changed from fiscal year 1996. This change is the result of 
automobile manufacturers participating in the PNGV program endorsing 
NHTSA's involvement. This change has resulted from the realization that 
while the lighter PNGV vehicles may pose a lesser threat to their 
potential collision partners, it is essential that the fleet of PNGV 
vehicles remains compatible with other vehicles in the fleet. Hence, 
the overall safety of the fleet needs to be balanced by losses incurred 
by the PNGV vehicles and the gains in benefits from their collision 
partners.
    A more recent and additional justification is that much of the 
research being undertaken for the PNGV program directly supports the 
required efforts under the vehicle compatibility research program. The 
approach in both programs is to develop a system model from which 
fleetwide vehicle performance is evaluated and from which global 
optimization of safety performance may be possible.
    Question. Why isn't NHTSA studying the safety of the specific 
vehicles that are being developed under the PNGV program?
    Answer. The agency will study the safety of the specific vehicles 
being developed under the PNGV program as their design characteristics 
become available. It is necessary to determine the safety of the PNGV 
vehicle as well as the safety of its collision partners in the total 
evaluation of the fleet.
    Due to the proprietary nature of their specific designs, it will be 
necessary for each automaker to insert their vehicle model into the 
system model tool being developed by NHTSA for the evaluation. Agency 
staff will work with the automakers to ensure that this is properly 
achieved.
    Question. Why is it essential at this time to increase funding for 
NHTSA's role in the PNGV? Are the automobile manufacturers ready to 
test their PNGV concepts?
    Answer. The increased funding is needed to ensure that the 
analytical tools being developed by the agency will be completed in 
time for the automobile manufacturers to evaluate the safety aspect of 
their PNGV concepts. It should be noted that the system model tool 
being developed allows for the evaluation of a variety of concepts and 
can be used to aid the automakers in their selection of technologies (a 
preferred option). To the best of the agency's knowledge automobile 
manufacturers are not yet ready to test their PNGV concepts.
    Question. Exactly how far along is the PNGV program?
    Answer. In that the agency does not monitor all aspects of the PNGV 
program, this question would be best answered by the Department of 
Commerce, which provides the Federal leadership for the Clinton 
Administration.
    Question. Are the industry participants in the PNGV ready to use 
the analytical tools developed by NHTSA?
    Answer. The agency has initiated a meeting with the pertinent USCAR 
(United States Council for Automotive Research) members responsible for 
the safety of the PNGV vehicles in order to coordinate and transition 
the analytical models and to enact USCAR involvement in assembling the 
system evaluation model. This meeting is to be held during May 1998.
    Question. How does the PNGV work relate to the research that NHTSA 
is pursuing regarding light trucks and SUV's?
    Answer. The research that has been undertaken and is underway for 
the PNGV program directly complements the efforts required for the 
vehicle compatibility research program, the area of research in which 
light trucks, SUV's, and vans have been identified as a growing safety 
problem. The approach in both programs is to develop a system model 
from which fleetwide vehicle performance is evaluated and from which 
global optimization of safety performance of the fleet may be possible. 
The activities that have been undertaken in the PNGV program for 
developing vehicle models representing the fleet correspond to the 
requirements for the compatibility study. Hence, the PNGV research 
activity provides the opportunity for leveraged research.
    Question. Since the finite element analysis tools will be of direct 
benefit to the automobile manufacturers, should some of the associated 
developmental costs be borne by the private sector?
    Answer. Agency staff have pursued automaker involvement in the 
development of the finite element models for the PNGV effort as well as 
under other programs. The major stumbling blocks that have precluded 
their participation in the finite element model development efforts are 
their concerns about sharing their proprietary modeling capabilities 
and the potential for product litigation resulting from the use of 
models developed by them.
    Question. If yes, have you sought cost sharing?
    Answer. Over the years, the agency has pursued automaker 
involvement in the development of finite element models. This has not 
been limited to the PNGV program. The automakers' concerns about 
sharing their proprietary modeling capabilities and the potential for 
product litigation resulting from the use of models developed by them 
has precluded their involvement.
    Question. Is language in the bill report necessary to encourage 
this outreach?
    Answer. Due to the expressed concerns of the automakers regarding 
their finite element models, language in the bill would result in 
increased contentiousness between the agency and the automakers.
    Question. Is the private sector developing their own finite 
analysis tools to test their PNGV models? If so, why is it necessary to 
increase federal funding in that area?
    Answer. The increased funding serves to complete the finite element 
model development effort that has been initiated during fiscal years 
1997 and 1998, and to use these developments toward assembling the 
system model that will be used for the safety evaluation.
    Question. How have NHTSA's efforts been coordinated with those of 
DOE and DOC?
    Answer. In developing the fiscal year 1999 program for PNGV, agency 
staff participated in a joint meeting with the Departments of Energy 
and Commerce (DOE, DOC) as well as with the other participants in the 
program. This meeting was held specifically to discuss and coordinate 
the proposed activities among the various participants. Additionally, 
agency staff met individually with DOE staff to coordinate activities 
in vehicle modeling.
    Question. During fiscal year 1997 and thus far in fiscal year 1998, 
what is the amount and purpose of any NHTSA funds spent or planned to 
be spent on non-safety aspects of PNGV? Specifically, how much has been 
spent on economic analysis, market penetration studies, industry 
impact, and regulatory impact evaluations?
    Answer. The agency has not expended any funds and has no plans to 
spend any of the requested funds toward the non-safety aspects of PNGV, 
such as economic analysis, market penetration, industry impact, and 
regulatory impact evaluations.
    Question. Please break down in extensive detail how the fiscal year 
1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999 monies were or will be 
used.
    Answer. The following table provides the requested breakdown:

                                                     FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                           Description                           -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1997            1998            1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finite Element Model Development and Validation.................      $1,533,940        $555,000      $1,250,000
Vehicle Articulated Mass Model Development......................          25,000         802,165         600,000
Vehicle Interior/Occupant Model Development.....................  ..............         200,000         400,000
System Model Development, Integration, and Fleet Studies........  ..............         400,000         700,000
Vehicle/Component Testing.......................................         190,000         355,835         450,000
Vehicle Purchase................................................         137,740          37,000         100,000
Computer Hardware, Software Purchase............................         620,000         150,000  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................       2,506,680       2,500,000       3,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. You are requesting two FTE's for the Partnership for a 
New Generation of Vehicles to provide specialists in computer modeling. 
Since the PNGV program will only last another few years, wouldn't it be 
more cost effective to hire additional contractor support as necessary?
    Answer. It is anticipated that the two FTE's will provide support 
for the PNGV program over a 5-year period. During that time, these 
persons also will begin to provide broad support for the analytical 
efforts being undertaken in the crashworthiness research program. 
Particularly, their involvement in the vehicle aggressivity and fleet 
compatibility research will be essential.
    Question. NHTSA states that funding will ensure that PNGV-developed 
vehicles meet existing and anticipated federal vehicle safety 
standards. Please explain this assertion. Will you have actual vehicles 
to test? If not, how can you be certain that those vehicles will meet 
existing safety standards?
    Answer. The agency's major effort is focused on ensuring that the 
overall safety of the fleet is ensured with the introduction of the 
PNGV vehicles. Regarding the aspect of meeting the existing and 
anticipated safety standards, with the help of the models, the safety 
performance of the PNGV vehicles will be evaluated per each of the 
major crash safety standards. The automakers themselves will be 
required to demonstrate compliance through testing.
                         general administration
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated 
and the amount actually allocated for the three subcomponents of the 
General Administration budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
    Answer.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year 1996    Fiscal year 1997    Fiscal year 1998
                       Program                       -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Request   Enacted   Request   Enacted   Request   Enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Evaluation..................................       489       480       475       474       474       474
Strategic Planning..................................       200  ........       325        75        75        75
Economic Analysis...................................        75        75       175        75        75        75
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................       764       555       975       624       624       624
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table for each of the three 
subcomponents in the General Administration budget showing how all the 
funds requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and 
please include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for 
each of similar activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, 
please justify the need for the requested increases.
    Answer. The major cause of the increase of $39,000 for evaluation 
in the fiscal year 1999 budget request over the fiscal year 1998 is the 
need to track the consequences of the use of on/off switches for 
airbags. Other differences between the two years for evaluation are the 
normal completion and starting of projects. The extra funding in 
strategic and program planning will allow for the development of 
forecasting models of fatalities and injuries. Additional scope will be 
added to the initial economic analysis project to improve the validity 
of the data gathering procedures used in the study (it was discovered 
that an impartial person rather than a parent was required to make a 
valid determination of a child's recovery from injury).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal Year
                                                    1999     Fiscal Year
                                                  Planned        1998
                                                  Funding      Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              PROGRAM EVALUATION
 
Program Evaluation Project:
    Odometer Fraud--Estimate of Magnitude.....  ...........      $30,000
    Heavy Truck Conspicuity (Standard 108)          $20,000      120,000
     Evaluation...............................
    Domestic Content Labeling (49 CFR Part      ...........       70,000
     583).....................................
    Survey of use of airbag on/off switches...      200,000      100,000
    Child Safety Seat Registration Survey           100,000       14,000
     (Standard 208)...........................
    Improved Air Bag Technology cost study           50,000  ...........
     (Standard 208)...........................
    Cost Studies of other safety standards           93,000       90,000
     (Standards 201, 202, 203, 204 in light
     trucks)..................................
    Support National Occupant Protection Use         50,000       50,000
     Survey (Standard 208)....................
                                               -------------------------
      TOTAL...................................      513,000      474,000
                                               =========================
        STRATEGIC AND PROGRAM PLANNING
 
Strategic and Program Planning Projects:
    Environmental Scan........................  ...........       20,000
    Alcohol Program Strategic Plan............  ...........       35,000
    Survey of Alcohol Program Customers              50,000  ...........
     Opinions and Expectations................
    Continuous Improvement materials,                15,000  ...........
     projects, equipment and conference fees..
    Forecasting Models of Fatalities and             23,000       20,000
     Injuries.................................
    Course and Background Research on Activity       10,000  ...........
     Based Cost Accounting Systems............
                                               -------------------------
        TOTAL.................................       98,000       75,000
                                               =========================
               ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
 
Economic Analysis Project: Development of the        98,000       75,000
 pediatric derivative of the Functional
 Capacity Index (FCI) continued during fiscal
 year 1998. A national conference on measuring
 injury outcome was held. In fiscal year 1999
 the application of the FCI and other methods
 of quantifying morbidity will be undertaken..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     strategic and program planning
    Question. Please state the reasons for hiring an outside contractor 
to improve the agency's strategic planning.
    Answer. Many key highway safety performance measures (e.g., 
fatalities, fatality rates, belt use, alcohol involved fatalities), 
have recently produced flat trends. In addition, population, 
demographic, technology, fleet mix and other factors uncontrollable by 
agency management are threatening to drive fatalities and injuries 
higher and are forcing the agency to consider new programs and 
approaches. As indicated in its strategic plan the agency is challenged 
to assess its historic approaches in light of current trends, customer 
needs and a changing environment and where necessary develop new 
approaches that will result in a continued downward trend in fatalities 
and injuries.
    To accomplish this objective the strategic and program planning 
group will develop strategic plans for selected agency programs. These 
plans will involve a review of external factors (i.e., environmental 
scans, customer needs, what others dealing with the problem are doing, 
etc), and assess internal factors (i.e., cost/benefit of existing 
programs, impact of existing programs on GPRA objectives, program 
delivery and management issues such as continuous improvement, etc). 
Projects of this nature are characterized by their breadth, depth, 
short time frames, and demanding process and analytical components. 
Since the resources (numbers, experiences and skills of staff) required 
to complete these projects are not fully resident in planning staff the 
agency will use outside consultants. An added benefit to using outside 
consultants is to develop non-traditional approaches to safety 
problems.
    Question. In extensive detail, please explain how the additional 
funds specified on page O&R-13 will be used for the fiscal year 1999 
TASC need. If the requested funding is not provided, what are the 
implications to NHTSA?
    Answer. As a result of NPR reinvention efforts and other 
initiatives to decrease administrative staff, TASC has proposed to 
provide administrative services to Departmental operating 
administrations in a centralized and cost efficient manner. Under this 
concept, DOT operating administrations must procure services from TASC, 
unless operating administrations determine that is more feasible or 
cost effective to do so otherwise. Most of the services provided by 
TASC, to name a few are mail/messenger services; telecommunications 
(FTS 2000); DAFIS; building management; library; occupied space for 
storage of publications in the warehouse; building security; house and 
contracting printing and distribution, have overhead expenses included. 
Due to customer demand, the Agency anticipates substantial increases in 
publishing and disseminating mission and safety related materials, 
particularly in the areas of air bag safety, child safety seat use, 
occupant protection, and motor vehicle defects reporting. At present 
the Agency has no flexibility to control these costs due to the fact 
that usage plays a large part of the billing cycle. The Agency's 
emphasis is being placed on providing increased customer service to 
internal and external customers through distribution of safety and 
mission related materials to the public. Therefore, these and other 
services provided by TASC are essential to the support and services 
needed by NHTSA. Without the full requested funding NHTSA's mission 
will suffer tremendously. Internal and external customer service will 
be nonexistent.
    Question. For fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and planned for 
fiscal year 1999, please provide a table similar to that provided 
previously to the committee, showing the amount of funds spent or 
allocated for non-mandatory awards and bonuses, PCS, and overtime pay, 
travel, and training.
    Answer. The following table shows funding for actual amounts spent 
in fiscal year 1997 and amounts appropriated in fiscal year 1998 and 
fiscal year 1999.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year--
                                ----------------------------------------
                                                  1998          1999
                                 1997 Actual  Appropriated  Appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awards and Bonuses.............          540           630           649
Permanent Change of Station....           88            87            87
Overtime Pay...................           27            18            22
Travel.........................        1,090         1,082         1,125
Training.......................          208           190           198
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please submit an updated table similar to that provided 
the committee previously, indication the amount of funds used for 
computer support.
    Answer. The following tables show the funding for computer support 
for the last three fiscal years and proposed for fiscal year 1999.

                                                COMPUTER SUPPORT
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         1999
                                                             1995       1996       1997       1998    (Proposed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Support........................................      2,552      2,713      2,711      2,426       3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Also provide a separate chart for communication systems 
for each of the last three fiscal years and proposed for fiscal year 
1999.
    Answer.

                                             COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         1999
                                                             1995       1996       1997       1998    (Proposed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications Systems..................................        298        312        330        375         390
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide tables on operating expenses, personnel 
compensation, and benefits combined with operating expenses for each 
major NHTSA program. Please compare the fiscal year 1998 appropriation 
with the fiscal year 1999 request.
    Answer. The information follows:

                          SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Fiscal Year   Fiscal Year
                                     1997          1998        Change
                                Appropriation    Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Funds:
    Personnel Compensation:
        Permanent positions...        38,567        38,979          412
        Other than permanent           1,226         1,227            1
         positions............
        Other.................           676           695           19
                               -----------------------------------------
          Total, Salaries.....        40,469        40,901          432
                               =========================================
    Personnel Benefits........         7,463          7,50          340
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and             47,932        48,404          472
       Benefits...............
                               =========================================
    Travel....................         1,082         1,082  ............
                               =========================================
      Total, Salaries and             49,014        49,486          472
       Expenses...............
                               =========================================
Allocation to Programs:
    Safety Performance:
        Salaries and Benefits.         6,862         6,938           76
        Travel................            60            60  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............         6,922         6,998           76
                               =========================================
    Safety Assurance:
        Salaries and Benefits.         7,440         7,523           83
        Travel................            95            95  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............         7,535         7,618           83
                               =========================================
    Highway Safety Programs:
        Salaries and Benefits.        14,634        14,735          101
        Travel................           616           616  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............        15,250        15,351          101
                               =========================================
    Research and Analysis:
        Salaries and Benefits.         9,534         9,641          107
        Travel................           140           140  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............         9,674         9,781          107
                               =========================================
    Office of the
     Administrator/Staff
     Offices:
        Salaries and Benefits.         2,961         2,994           33
        Travel................           129           129  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............         3,090         3,123           33
                               =========================================
    General Administration:
        Salaries and Benefits.         6,501         6,573           72
        Travel................            42            42  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............         6,543         6,615           72
                               =========================================
    NHTSA:
        Salaries and Benefits.        47,932        48,404          472
        Travel................         1,082         1,082  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Total...............        49,014        49,486          472
                               =========================================
Use of Funds:
    Headquarters operating
     expenses:
        Personnel-related                325           305          (20)
         costs................
        Administrative                 2,790         2,791            1
         services.............
        Rent..................  .............        4,593        4,593
        WCF/TASC..............         2,894         3,451          557
        Computer support......         2,711         2,426         (285)
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal,                    8,720        13,566        4,846
           headquarters.......
                               =========================================
    Field operating expenses..           482           482  ............
                               =========================================
      Total, operating                 9,202        14,048        4,846
       expenses...............
                               =========================================
Allocation to Programs:
    Safety Performance:                1,479         2,301          822
     Headquarters expenses....
    Safety Assurance:                  1,573         2,447          874
     Headquarters expenses....
                               =========================================
    Highway Safety Programs:
        Headquarters expenses.         2,085         3,184        1,099
        Field expenses                   375           375  ............
         (Regions)............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal............         2,460         3,559        1,099
                               =========================================
    Research and Analysis:             1,651         2,568          917
     Headquarters expenses....
    Office of the                        638           993          355
     Administrator/Staff
     Offices: Headquarters
     expenses.................
    General Administration:            1,401         2,180          779
     Headquarters expenses....
                               =========================================
    NHTSA:
        Headquarters expenses.         8,827        13,673        4,846
        Field expenses........           375           375  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
          Total...............         9,202        14,048        4,846
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide an updated listing of Schedule C employees 
currently on board, by title, salary, office and location.
    Answer. There are four Schedule C employees on board as of June 
1998:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Title                      Salary                             Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs...      $80,391  Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Washington, DC.
Special Assistant to the Deputy                82,985  Office of the Deputy Administrator, Washington, DC.
 Administrator.
Chief, Consumer Affairs Division........       85,579  Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, Washington, DC.
Special Assistant to the Administrator..       55,969  Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a detailed breakout, on a contract by 
contract basis, how the $30.850 million on page GEN-23 under ``other 
services'' was spent.
    Answer. The line item ``Other Services'' includes a variety of 
services ranging from reimbursements to the Working Capital Fund to 
contract program costs. The attached table is a listing of the amounts 
obligated under this category by contract program and administrative 
line item.

Other services

HQ ADMINISTRATION:
    Working Capital Fund......................................$2,680,564
    Security Investigations...................................   257,507
    Training..................................................   281,604
    Computer Support.......................................... 2,140,511
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, HQ Administration................................ 5,360,186
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
SAFETY PERFORMANCE:
    Vehicle Safety & Consumer Standards.......................   827,680
    New Car Assessment Program................................ 1,355,657
    Fuel Economy..............................................    63,903
    Theft.....................................................   121,011
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, Safety Performance............................... 2,368,251
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
SAFETY ASSURANCE:
    Vehicle Safety Compliance.................................   112,757
    Defects Investigation.....................................   847,018
    Hot Line..................................................   202,027
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, Safety Assurance................................. 1,161,802
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS:
    Alcohol Drug & State Programs............................. 9,293,291
    National Occupant Protection Program...................... 4,633,896
    Enforcement & Emergency Services.......................... 2,147,675
    Safe Communities.......................................... 1,003,375
    Child Safety Seat Program.................................   757,497
    Records...................................................   610,144
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, Traffic Safety Programs..........................18,445,878
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
REGIONAL OPERATIONS:
    Enforcement & Emergency Services..........................   105,213
    Alcohol Drug & State Programs............................. 1,366,044
    National Occupant Protection Program...................... 1,593,878
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, Regional Operations.............................. 3,065,135
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
P&P CONTRACT PROGRAM:
    Program Evaluation........................................   519,548
    Strategic Planning........................................   101,859
    Economic Analysis.........................................    57,341
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total, P&P Program......................................   678,748
                    ==============================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      NHTSA TOTAL.............................................31,080,000

    Question. Please prepare a table showing the amount of travel, 
permanent change of station, training, non-mandatory bonuses or awards, 
TASC, and commuter support monies allocated in fiscal year 1995, fiscal 
year 1996, and fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998, and requested 
for fiscal year 1999. Please compare these amounts to appropriated 
amounts.
    Answer.

                                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year 1995        Fiscal year 1996        Fiscal year 1997        Fiscal year 1998       Fiscal
                                             ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  year 1999
                                                Request     Approp.     Request     Approp.     Request     Approp.     Request     Approp.     Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel......................................       1,022       1,018       1,022         972       1,022       1,082       1,082       1,082       1,125
PCS.........................................         118          60          88          88          88          88          88          87          87
Training....................................         192         173         256         242         262         212         192         190         198
Bonuses & Awards............................         593         486         611         611         630         589         650         630         649
TASC \1\....................................       3,898       3,563       3,439       3,353       3,492       2,894       3,810       3,584       6,597
Computer Support............................       2,931       2,552       3,131       2,713       3,211       2,711       2,426       2,395       2,555
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to fiscal year 1999, costs for TASC services for program related printing and graphics, computer support, and specialized training were
  included in the respective program office's budget. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, all of the costs that were previously spread across the program
  areas are now consolidated into a single TASC budget.

    Question Please provide an updated table similar to that previously 
provided to the committee regarding positions and funding for the 
Office of the Administrator and staff offices.
    Answer. The information follows:

    OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF OFFICES FULL TIME POSITIONS \1\ AND FUNDING, FISCAL YEARS 1996-1998
                                             [DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1996 \2\            1997 \2\              1998
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                      POSITION   FUNDING  POSITION   FUNDING  POSITION   FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator.........................        4      $353         4      $358         4      $396
Deputy Administrator................................        2       176         2       179         2       198
Executive Director..................................        2       176         2       179         2       198
Intergovernmental Affairs...........................        1        88         1        89         1        99
International Harmonization.........................        2       176         2       239         3       357
Executive Secretariat...............................        6       529         6       537         5       495
Civil Rights........................................        4       353         4       358         3       297
Public and Consumer Affairs.........................       12     1,059        12     1,074        13     1,286
Chief Counsel.......................................       30     2,647        30     2,684        30     2,968
Less: Mission Support...............................      (22)   (1,941)      (22)   (1,968)      (22)   (2,176)
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................       41     3,618        41     3,728        41     4,116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Positions are rounded for display purposes.
\2\ Enacted levels.

    Question. Please prepare a table indicating costs for permanent 
changes of station and provide a table of the number of people moved 
and associated expenses for each of the last three years and the amount 
requested for fiscal year 1999.
    Answer.

                    PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Average
        Fiscal Year Moves          Allocated     Number of     Cost Per
                                     Amount        Moves         Move
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................      $88,000           4        $20,000
1997............................       88,000           3         30,000
1998............................       87,000           3.5       35,000
1999 est........................       87,000           3         35,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Inflation has caused an increase in the average cost of each
  permanent change of station move.

    Question. Please display the amount and nature of reprogramming 
that occurred during fiscal year 1997, or fiscal year 1998 in any of 
the NHTSA accounts. Also in a separate table, please show any 
unobligated funds or carryover funds for those years.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the agency received Congressional 
approval to shift $2.86 million within the Operations and Research 
account, to be used for airbag safety research. Of this amount, $1.66 
million was shifted from Research and Development carryover resulting 
from fiscal year 1996 contract savings and deobligations. In addition, 
$1.2 million was reallocated from a one-time savings in the area of 
salaries and benefits resulting from a reduced FTE usage rate in fiscal 
year 1996. This funding shift was necessary to perform critical work in 
assessing the need and performance requirements for advanced airbag 
systems. Because of the urgent nature of these airbag issues and the 
complexities involved in evaluating advanced airbag technology, these 
additional requirements could not have been planned for or handled 
during the regular budget process.
    In fiscal year 1998, the agency received Congressional approval to 
shift $1.111 million within the Operations and Research account in 
order to fund the contractor support to process the application forms, 
database entry and tracking, which are essential steps in the NHTSA 
authorization process for installation of air bag on-off switches. 
Funding was derived using a portion of the carryover funds from the 
areas of Safety Assurance ($564,000), Safety Performance ($166,000), 
Traffic Safety Programs ($200,000) and Plans and Policy ($181,000) for 
this purpose.
    The following is a table showing unobligated balances brought 
forward from fiscal year 1996 and 1997 into fiscal year 1997 and 1998:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal     Fiscal
                                                    year 1997  year 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Program:
    Safety Performance............................         84         66
    Safety Assurance..............................        404         60
    Highway Safety................................        549        346
    Research and Development......................      8,378      7,656
    General Administration........................        261          1
    On/Off Airbag Switches........................  .........      1,111
Salaries and Benefits.............................      1,287      2,211
Miscellaneous operating expenses..................        610        459
Recoveries and Other Deobligations................      1,863      1,152
                                                   ---------------------
      Total.......................................     13,436     13,062
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a list of all vacancies at NHTSA and the 
corresponding amount of salaries and benefits dedicated for these 
positions.
    Answer.

                                                           Corresponding
        Vacancies                                          Salary Amount

Information Specialist, GS-301-12/13..........................   $56,000
Mathematical Statistician, GS-1529-11.........................    41,000
Mathematical Statistician, GS-1529-7/9........................    36,000
Program Analyst, GS-343-12/13.................................    56,000
Medical Officer, GS-602-15...................................\1\ 102,000
Computer Specialist, GS-334-11/12.............................    48,000
Budget Officer, GS-560-15.....................................\2\ 90,000
Highway Safety Specialist, GS-2125-15.........................\2\ 86,000
Highway Safety Specialist, GS-2125-11/2.......................    48,000
Highway Safety Specialist, GS-2125-12.........................    48,000
Highway Safety Specialist, 2125-12/13.........................    56,000
Highway Safety Specialist, GS-13/14...........................    67,000
General Engineer, GS-801-15...................................\2\ 90,000
General Engineer, GS-801-14...................................    67,000
Safety Compliance Engineer, GS-801-11/12......................    48,000
Safety Compliance Engineer, GS-801-13.........................    56,000
Safety Defects Engineer, GS-7/9/11............................    42,000
Mechanical Engineer, GS-830-12/13.............................    56,000
Criminal Investigator, GS-1811-14.............................    85,000
Safety Defect Specialist, GS-301-13...........................    56,000
Economist, GS-110-14..........................................    67,000

\1\ Salary reflects a possible recruitment incentive.
\2\ Fluctuation in salaries depends on salary history of selectee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     national driver register (ndr)
    Question. Please provide an updated status report of NHTSA's review 
of state driver licensing systems. How have the States progressed in 
that area?
    Answer. The joint NHTSA, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and 
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) review of 
the three operational driver license information systems was completed 
in the fall of 1997. It covered NHTSA's National Driver Register's 
(NDR) Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS); the FHWA's Commercial 
Driver License Information System (CDLIS); and AAMVA's Driver License 
Reciprocity (DLR) The report's recommendations include the following: a 
pointer system for all drivers that includes PDPS and CDLIS functions 
should be developed; the recommended all-driver system should be 
federally mandated and funded; the Social Security Number should be the 
driver identification number; and the system should maintain the 
current 7 second message response time.
    The states, through AAMVA, have expressed support for the all-
driver pointer system. Other than supporting legislation related to 
such a system, the states have made no progress toward an all driver 
system. However, the states continue to improve their licensing systems 
by: implementing fraudulent application detection programs; verifying 
applicants' Social Security Numbers; installing systems to digitally 
store images of drivers; using more sophisticated security features to 
prevent tampering with the license; and other licensing system related 
activities.
    Question. What improvements have been made since last year in the 
NDR? What challenges remain?
    Answer. There have been three significant improvements or changes 
made to the NDR in the last year. The NDR's system programming was 
assessed for year 2000 compliance. As a result of this assessment and 
an internal assessment, the NDR's software has been modified and 
testing has begun to become year 2000 compliant. The entire system was 
moved to a larger mainframe and the interactive (on-line) 
communications software was upgraded. This has resulted in more 
efficient operation of the system. The system was also modified to 
allow air carriers access to the NDR through the states to make 
inquiries on pilot applicants.
    Many challenges remain. As the volume of interactive inquiries 
continues to increase it will be a challenge to maintain our response 
time at current levels. The states support, and there is legislation 
pending, to eventually implement some sort of an all driver system. The 
development of that system will be a challenge over the next several 
years. The conversion of the last jurisdiction (DC) to the problem 
driver pointer system (PDPS) has been an on-going challenge. There are 
50 different systems interacting with the NDR and a problem with one 
state can affect 50 others. These problems have to be identified and 
solved on a real-time basis. During the next year we will work with the 
states to determine the feasibility of interactive updating of pointer 
records. Currently updates are processed in batches. We will also be 
working with the air carriers, FAA, and states to resolve an issue 
related to state processing of pilot applicants not licensed by the 
inquiring state. By far the most pressing and immediate challenge is 
the testing and validation, through interaction with the states, of the 
system modifications made to assure that the system will not be 
affected by the year 2000.
    Question. How have the data that are received by the NDR been 
improved? How are further improvements reflected in the fiscal year 
1999 budget request?
    Answer. As all states, except the District of Columbia, have 
converted to the Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS) the license 
status and conviction data are as accurate as possible because under 
PDPS the inquiring state receives the substantive data directly from 
the state that created the NDR pointer. In addition, states are 
encouraged to submit ``clean files'' on a periodic basis to update and 
delete their NDR pointers.
    Fiscal year 1999 funds will be used to operate the PDPS Help Desk 
that assists states in resolving problems, tests changes to state 
systems, and defines issues that need to be addressed (e.g. age of 
offenses, non-safety related suspensions on the NDR, etc.) by the 
licensing community. In addition, system changes will be made to 
increase the age range of drivers allowed on the system to 10 to 110 
years of age (currently 13 to 100). The NDR will also consider 
programming changes that will allow the state to immediately add, 
delete, or make changes to pointers. Currently, changes are batched and 
processed daily .
    Question. Please provide an update on the PDPS. What has NHTSA done 
to encourage all States to use that system? How many states are 
actively using that system?
    Answer. In 1997, the NDR processed 34.9 million inquiries, an 
increase of 3 million more than in 1996, and 9 million more than in 
1993, the last year all states participated in the old NDR system. In 
1997, the NDR processed 29.5 million interactive (on-line/immediate) 
inquiries, an increase of 2.8 million more than in 1996, and 18 million 
more than were processed in 1993.
    NHTSA provided grants to assist states in the conversion to the 
Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS). In addition, a Help Desk with a 
staff of qualified personnel was funded to provide on-site and testing 
assistance to the states. The agency has also jointly sponsored, with 
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, users 
meetings to provide state personnel a forum to share experiences and 
discuss issues related to the PDPS.
    All states, except the District of Columbia, have converted to the 
Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS). All states, including the 
District of Columbia, actively use the NDR. A conversion program is 
used to facilitate the exchange driver status information between the 
non-PDPS state (DC) and the states. We are working with the District of 
Columbia to determine an accurate date for their conversion to PDPS. 
They will not meet their current target conversion date of May 15, 
1998.
    Question. How many States are not able to use PDPS. How is NHTSA 
assisting these states and how is it reflected in the fiscal year 1999 
and fiscal year 1998 budgets?
    Answer. The District of Columbia (DC) is the only state that has 
not converted to PDPS. However, through a NDR conversion program DC and 
the other states are able to exchange driver status information through 
the NDR. The District still has NHTSA grant money to assist in their 
conversion to PDPS. In addition, help desk staff are available to 
assist in the programming changes necessary to make the conversion to 
PDPS. Help desk staff will also assist the District of Columbia during 
testing to correct problems the state encounters. Because we expect the 
District to complete its conversion to PDPS prior to September 30, 
1998, we do not expect to expend any fiscal year 1999 funds on this 
effort.
     highway safety data systems and traffic records grant program
    Question. Why is there no fiscal year 1999 request for grants in 
this area as proposed by both the House and Senate reauthorization 
bills?
    Answer. The Administration did not request funding for the new data 
incentive grant program in its fiscal year 1999 budget request, even 
though the program was included in the NEXTEA reauthorization proposal. 
NHTSA has been working in cooperation with FHWA and state and local 
partners to develop a core set of crash data elements which was 
requested by local, state and Federal traffic safety organizations. 
This model data set was not scheduled for completion until the middle 
of fiscal year 1999. Since NHTSA believed this model was needed in 
order to initiate the new incentive grant program, the agency planned 
to complete the model data set, and then develop guidance for the new 
grant program incorporating the data set during fiscal year 1999. 
Similarly, the House reauthorization bill has required that the 
Secretary determine the model data elements and that States must 
incorporate them in their plans under the data incentive grant program.
    Question. How will NHTSA help the States in this area?
    Answer. NHTSA will continue to offer support to states and 
communities for data improvement programs through a variety of 
technical assistance activities, including provision of traffic records 
assessments, peer-to-peer support for states interested in implementing 
the CODES program, and training programs on use of traffic records for 
traffic safety manager. Currently, data analysis and evaluation 
technical assistance is offered to the states and communities through 
each Regional offices. This effort will enable states to analyze their 
data to define meaningful goals and performance measures; target their 
programs to meet identified highway safety needs, including traffic 
records needs; and measure program impact. In addition, Regional staff 
will provide assistance to states in understanding and meeting the 
criteria for the new data incentive grants as soon as they are 
finalized.
                              section 402
    Question. Why is it necessary to increase funds for Grant 
Administration?
    Answer. NHTSA has requested a 3 percent increase in Grant 
Administration funds, from $5.268 thousand in fiscal year 1998 to 
$5.434 thousand in fiscal year 1999, to cover cost-of-living increases 
in salaries and other costs of administering this grant program. NHTSA 
has only requested 3.3 percent of the total Section 402 request ($166.7 
million) although permitted by law to request up to 5 percent of the 
Section 402 funding level for grant administration purposes.
                     drugged driving grant program
    Question. How many States do you expect to qualify for this grant 
program?
    Answer. The proposed Drugged Driving Incentive Grant program would 
provide a state with a grant for drugged driving countermeasures 
provided that the state meets at least five of the following nine 
criteria: (1) has a zero tolerance driving law for illicit drugs; (2) 
has a drug impaired driving law that applies to any drug or substance, 
whether licit or illicit; (3) has a law mandating chemical testing for 
drugs of drivers in fatal or serious injury crashes when an officer has 
probable cause to believe the driver has committed a drug- or 
substance-related traffic offense; (4) has a system for administrative 
driver's license suspension or revocation for persons who drive under 
the influence of a drug or substance; (5) has a law requiring at least 
six months suspension or revocation of the driver's licenses of persons 
convicted of drug offenses, not necessarily connected with driving; (6) 
has a graduated licensing system for young drivers that includes drug 
use and drugged driving provisions; (7) provides for active enforcement 
and publicity of drugged driving laws; (8) has a system of drug 
intervention, providing for assessment and referral to treatment of 
persons who have been driving under the influence of a drug or 
controlled substance; (9) has an effective educational program 
providing drug information to license applicants and renewals, and 
including drug-related questions on the driver's license examination. 
The agency estimates that 20 states would qualify for grants during the 
first year. The table below shows all states that the agency believes 
currently meet at least 5 of the 9 criteria, and indicates which 
criteria each state meets.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Criteria
                      State                       --------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     #1     #2     #3     #4     #5     #6     #7     #8     #9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (6)...........................................  .....     X      X      X   .....  .....     X      X      X
CT (5)...........................................     X      X   .....     X   .....  .....     X      X   .....
DE (5)...........................................  .....     X   .....     X      X   .....  .....     X      X
DC (5)...........................................  .....     X   .....     X      X   .....     X      X   .....
FL (5)...........................................  .....     X   .....  .....     X      X      X      X   .....
IL (6)...........................................     X      X      X      X   .....  .....     X      X   .....
IA (5)...........................................  .....     X      X   .....     X   .....     X      X   .....
LA (5)...........................................     X      X   .....  .....  .....     X      X      X   .....
MD (5)...........................................  .....     X      X   .....  .....     X      X      X   .....
MN (6)...........................................     X      X      X   .....  .....  .....     X      X      X
MO (6)...........................................  .....     X      X      X   .....  .....     X      X      X
MT (5)...........................................  .....     X   .....     X   .....  .....     X      X      X
NV (5)...........................................     X      X      X      X   .....  .....     X   .....  .....
NC (5)...........................................     X      X   .....  .....  .....     X      X      X   .....
ND (6)...........................................  .....     X      X      X   .....  .....     X      X      X
OK (6)                                             .....     X      X      X      X   .....     X      X   .....
PA (6)...........................................  .....     X      X   .....     X   .....     X      X      X
TN (6)...........................................     X      X      X   .....  .....  .....     X      X      X
TX (5)...........................................  .....     X      X   .....     X   .....     X   .....     X
UT (7)...........................................     X      X   .....     X   .....     X      X      X      X
VA (6)...........................................  .....     X      X   .....     X   .....     X      X      X
WV (6)...........................................  .....     X   .....     X   .....     X      X      X      X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Research and Special Programs Administration
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                           rspa bill language
    Question. On page 13 of your fiscal year 1999 budget submission, 
the suggested bill language says that $574,000 shall be derived from 
the Pipeline Safety Fund for expenses necessary to discharge the 
functions of RSPA. What functions are supported by the $574,000 derived 
from the Pipeline Safety Fund?
    Answer. The $574,000 requested in the Research and Special Programs 
appropriations bill language represents funding to support 
administrative functions provided by federal employees (7 FTE) within 
Program Support offices, particularly the Office of Chief Counsel. All 
offices within Program Support work with the Office of Pipeline Safety 
to provide administrative functions which enhance the nation's safety.
    Question. What fees are represented by the ``up to $1,200,000 in 
fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g)''? Why is $1,200,000 the 
appropriate amount to deposit in the General Treasury as offsetting 
receipts?
    Answer. When the Emergency Preparedness Grants program was 
authorized, Congress determined that a grants program portion 
(currently $250 of the total $300 fee required) and a registration 
processing portion (currently $50 of the total $300 fee required) 
should be collected as registration fees. The registration processing 
fee is the $1,200,000 stated in the appropriation's language. The 
amount has offset part of RSP's General Fund appropriation for funds 
required to process the registration statements, including the 
establishment and maintenance of a registration system of certain 
shippers and carriers of hazardous materials.
    The contract program level for establishing such a registration 
system initially required an appropriation of $1,200,000. In fiscal 
year 1999, contract funding alone in the amount of $750,000 is required 
to maintain the existing registration database. That amount does not 
include federal labor costs and administrative expenses. We plan to 
make any adjustments necessary to the processing fee when we increase 
collections for the grants program fee through rulemaking.
    Question. What activities comprise the 3-year availability portion 
of the Research and Special Programs request ($3,460,000)? What 
activities comprised the 3-year availability amount in fiscal year 1998 
($4,950,000)? Why is the fiscal year 1998 figure higher, when the 
appropriation was lower than the funding level requested for fiscal 
year 1999?
    Answer. The 3-year funding level of the Research and Special 
Programs (RSP) request ($3,460,000) represents all R&D contract funds 
requested in the RSP appropriation, as confirmed by RSPA's fiscal year 
1999 Budget Request on page 12.
    The 3-year funding level in fiscal year 1998 ($4,950,000) provides 
funding for the $3,100,000 enacted by Congress for all RSP R&D contract 
programs, as confirmed by RSPA's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request on 
page 12. The remaining $1,850,000 was not specified by Congress, and, 
since the expected amount of 1-year funds was not made available, we 
used 3-year funds to cover the enacted level of our operating expenses. 
RSPA's use of 3-year funds for operating expenses is atypical and has 
caused significant difficulties for financial management and has 
increased our workload with a need to establish and track such 
obligations.
    RSPA's 3-year enacted funds were higher in fiscal year 1998, even 
though the appropriation was lower than the requested funds for fiscal 
year 1999, because in fiscal year 1998, the amount of 3-year funds 
enacted was greater than, and the amount of 1-year funds enacted was 
less than what RSP required by $1,850,000. The same situation occurred 
in the fiscal year 1997 RSP appropriation.
                  office of hazardous materials safety
    Question. The only change between the fiscal year 1999 budget 
request for OHMS and the fiscal year 1998 enacted level is an increase 
of $521,000 in personnel compensation and benefits. What is the 
rationale for this allocation? Is the current services program so 
effective that no change is needed?
    Answer. We believe the fiscal year 1999 budget request is 
sufficient to carry out an effective program to ensure the safe 
transportation of hazardous materials.
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated 
and the amount actually spent for the different categories and sub-
components of the Hazardous Materials Safety budget for each of the 
last three years. Please explain any deviation or reallocation of 
funds.
    Answer. The following table shows the appropriated & actual amounts 
obligated for the major categories and sub-components of the Hazardous 
Materials Safety budget for each of the last three years.

                            FISCAL YEAR 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Appropriated     Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program funds:
    Information Systems.................        $950,000        $950,000
    Research & Analysis.................         256,000         256,000
    Rulemaking Support..................         365,000         365,000
    Inspection & Enforcement............         180,000         180,000
    Registration........................         750,000         750,000
    HAZMAT Training.....................         350,000         350,000
    Information Dissemination...........         170,000         170,000
    Emergency Preparedness..............         370,000         370,000
    International Standards.............         140,000         140,000
R&D:
    Information Systems.................         300,000         300,000
    Regulation Compliance...............         386,000     \1\ 425,000
    Research & Analysis.................         699,000     \1\ 628,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations may include carryover funding from prior years.


                            FISCAL YEAR 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Appropriated     Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program funds:
    Information Systems.................      $1,075,000      $1,075,000
    Research & Analysis.................         565,000         565,000
    Rulemaking Support..................         382,000         383,000
    Inspection & Enforcement............         260,000         260,000
    Registration........................         750,000         750,000
    HAZMAT Training.....................         475,000         475,000
    Information Dissemination...........         485,000         485,000
    Emergency Preparedness..............         370,000         370,000
    International Standards.............          80,000          80,000
R&D:
    Information Systems.................         300,000         300,000
    Regulation Compliance...............         236,000     \1\ 531,000
    Research & Analysis.................         464,000         358,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations may include carryover funding from prior years.


                            FISCAL YEAR 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Appropriated   Obligations \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program funds:
    Information Systems................      $1,075,000       $1,075,000
    Research & Analysis................         531,000          531,000
    Rulemaking Support.................         282,000          282,000
    Inspection & Enforcement...........         155,000          155,000
    Registration.......................         750,000          750,000
    HAZMAT Training....................         475,000          475,000
    Information Dissemination..........         520,000          520,000
    Emergency Preparedness.............         370,000          370,000
    International Standards............          40,000           40,000
R&D:
    Information Systems................         300,000          300,000
    Regulation Compliance..............         236,000          150,000
    Research & Analysis................         464,000          430,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projected to end of fiscal year.

    Question. Please identify the amount and nature of any 
reprogramming that occurred during the last two years.
    Answer. We have not reprogrammed funding in fiscal year 1997, and 
do not anticipate reprogramming funding in fiscal year 1998. Minor 
transfers occurred in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 between 
object classes within operating expenses only, to meet changing 
priorities.
    Question. What is the status of the reauthorization for RSPA's 
hazardous materials safety program? Has the administration submitted 
proposed reauthorizing legislation? What is the current status of the 
legislation in the House and Senate authorizing committees? What issues 
have generated the most discussion, controversy, or hearing questions 
in the reauthorization process?
    Answer. We are waiting for Congress to take final action on 
reauthorization for RSPA's hazardous materials safety program. We 
anticipate that reauthorization of the hazardous materials safety 
program may be discussed during meetings of the conference committee on 
the Senate and House transportation bills.
    On April 17, 1997, the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
transmitted to Congress, the ``Surface Transportation Act of 1997'' for 
inclusion as part of the National Economic Crossroads Transportation 
Safety Efficiency Act of 1997 (NEXTEA). Title X of DOT's proposal 
included provisions to strengthen our hazardous materials safety 
program as highlighted in the attached one-page fact sheet. In brief, 
we asked Congress to clarify DOT's inspection authority to open 
suspicious packages, take and analyze samples of materials and bar 
their transport if they pose a threat. We also asked that our oversight 
be extended to overseas shipments of U.S. air carriers. Finally, we 
asked for tougher penalties for those who tamper with hazardous 
materials labels and cause spills and other releases.
    On March 12, 1998, the Senate completed action on S-1173, the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1997 (ISTEA II), which largely 
contained the Department's hazardous materials reauthorization proposal 
as provided. The House passed H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface 
Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA), on April 1, 1998, reauthorizing 
federal transportation programs but it did not include a provision to 
reauthorize our hazardous materials safety program.
    An issue that has been raised is an industry concern related to the 
potential impact of one of our proposed inspection provisions--to 
clarify DOT's enforcement authority to open packages in transportation, 
to take and analyze samples of materials, and prevent transportation 
when an imminent hazard may exist.
                          ntsb recommendations
    Question. Please provide a detailed list of the hazmat 
recommendations made by the NTSB during the last three fiscal years. 
Also provide a status update for each recommendation that has been 
closed acceptable or closed unacceptable, and those that remain open. 
How were each of these addressed, and by which agency?
    Answer. In the last three years (1995, 1996, and 1997) NTSB made 5 
safety recommendations to RSPA involving the transportation of 
hazardous materials. They were R-95-11, Periodic Inspections of Tank 
Car Linings and Coatings; H-95-37, Improve Crashworthiness of the Front 
Ends of Cargo Tanks; A-96-29 Chemical Oxygen Generators as Cargo on 
Aircraft; A-96-30, Oxidizers and Oxidizing Materials in Air Cargo 
Compartments; and A-97-78, Availability to Inspectors of Previously 
Issued Approvals by the Bureau of Explosives Transferred to RSPA.
    These Recommendations are summarized below:
R-95-11
    In R-95-11, NTSB recommended that RSPA, in cooperation with the 
FRA, require that any party using a tank car to transport corrosive 
materials determine the periodic inspection interval and testing 
technique for linings and coatings, and require that this information 
be provided to the parties responsible for the inspection and testing 
of tank cars. A final rule under Dockets HM-175A and HM-201, issued on 
June 26, 1996, requires the owner of a tank car lining or coating to 
inform the inspection parties of the interval, test techniques, and 
acceptance criteria required to test the tank car integrity. This 
recommendation was classified as ``Closed-Acceptable Action'' by NTSB 
on February 10, 1997.
H-95-37
    In H-95-37, NTSB recommended that RSPA, in cooperation with FHWA, 
study methods and develop standards to improve the crashworthiness of 
the front ends of cargo tanks used to transport liquefied flammable 
gases and potentially lethal nonflammable compressed gases. In response 
to NTSB Recommendation H-95-37, on July 15, 1996, RSPA contracted with 
Pressure Sciences Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to conduct a 
feasibility study on means to enhance protection for MC-331 cargo tanks 
in frontal collisions. Methods of improving crashworthiness of front 
heads on MC-331 cargo tanks were suggested and appropriate standards 
for design and construction were identified. The study found that head 
shields backed by energy absorbing materials offer the greatest impact 
performance and cost effectiveness potential. In fiscal year 1998, RSPA 
initiated a follow-on study to include a parametric analysis of head 
shield and energy absorbing materials. This study will provide more 
comprehensive research and is designed to identify the extent of 
protection which maximizes safety while minimizing costs. RSPA expects 
the follow-on study will be completed by mid 1999. After RSPA and FHWA 
evaluate the results of the studies, we will initiate rulemaking or 
other appropriate actions, if warranted, to improve the crashworthiness 
of front heads of MC-331 cargo tanks which transport liquefied 
flammable gases and potentially lethal nonflammable gases.
A-96-29 and A-96-30
    As a result of the ValuJet aviation accident on May 11, 1996, NTSB 
issued two safety recommendations to RSPA (A-96-29 and A-96-30). In A-
96-29, NTSB recommended that RSPA, in cooperation with FAA, permanently 
prohibit the transportation of chemical oxygen generators as cargo on 
board any passenger or cargo aircraft when the generators have passed 
expiration dates and the chemical cores have not been depleted. A Final 
Rule was published on December 30, 1996, prohibiting the transportation 
of all oxygen generators as cargo on passenger carrying aircraft. This 
prohibition is broader than NTSB's recommendation. In A-96-30, NTSB 
recommended that RSPA, in cooperation with FAA, prohibit the 
transportation of oxidizers and oxidizing materials in cargo 
compartments that do not have fire or smoke detection systems. A Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking was published on December 30, 1996, which 
permits air transportation of oxidizers only in accessible locations on 
cargo aircraft. Further, under a Final Rule published on June 5, 1997 
and effective July 7, if the oxygen generator is attached to any type 
of initiation mechanism its transportation must be specifically 
approved by RSPA's Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials 
Safety and the generator must be transported in a package prepared by 
the holder of the approval. A Supplemental Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking was issued on August 20, 1997 specifically to analyze the 
prohibition of oxidizers in other than Class D cargo compartments with 
the comment period ending October 20, 1997. On November 28, 1997 a 
Notice of a Public Meeting and Reopening of the Comment Period was 
published and the comment period was extended to February 13, 1998. 
Comments are being evaluated and will be incorporated into a Final Rule 
in fiscal year 1998.
A-97-78
    In A-97-78, NTSB recommended that RSPA develop records for all 
approvals previously issued by the Bureau of Explosives and transferred 
to RSPA and ensure all records, including designs and testing, and 
packaging requirements, are available to inspectors to help them 
determine that products transported under those approvals are 
transported safely and in accordance with the requirements of the 
approvals. RSPA agreed with NTSB and on September 24, 1997 RSPA 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, HM-166Y, which proposed to 
terminate most remaining Bureau of Explosives (BOE) approvals. Any 
person holding a BOE approval affected by the termination would be 
required to file a request for a new approval. This action will ensure 
that RSPA has all records on file for verification when a question is 
raised as to whether a particular explosive is being offered in 
conformance with the approval authorizing its transportation. NTSB 
subsequently classified Safety Recommendation A-97-78 as ``Open-
Acceptable Response.''
    In the last three years (1995, 1996 and 1997) NTSB has closed eight 
safety recommendations addressed to RSPA, while twenty four remain 
open.

                     RECOMMENDATIONS CLOSED ACCEPTABLE OR CLOSED ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE ACTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Number                   Date closed                                Subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-91-034.....................  November 8, 1996......  RSPA require all fittings and devices mounted on a
                                                        manhole cover of cargo tanks meet the same performance
                                                        standard to withstand static internal fluid pressure as
                                                        that required for the manhole cover. ``Closed-
                                                        Acceptable''
I-90-005.....................  July 28, 1995.........  RSPA require all manufacturers of DOT specification
                                                        containers that were not tested and inspected in
                                                        accordance with regulatory requirements, and all that
                                                        were properly tested but that failed to meet regulatory
                                                        requirements, to retest randomly selected containers
                                                        from each lot of these identified containers in
                                                        accordance with DOT regulatory procedures; and to notify
                                                        the owners of containers in lots that fail the tests to
                                                        remove DOT specification markings. ``Closed-Acceptable
                                                        Alternate Action''
I-90-006.....................  July 28, 1995.........  RSPA modify its compliance program to determine that
                                                        containers are removed from transportation when those
                                                        containers are identified as not meeting specification
                                                        requirements. ``Closed-Acceptable Alternate Action''
R-89-80......................  November 26, 1996.....  RSPA evaluate present safety standards for tank cars
                                                        transporting hazardous materials by using safety
                                                        analysis methods to identify unacceptable levels of risk
                                                        and the degree of risk from the release of a hazardous
                                                        material, and then modify existing regulations to
                                                        achieve an acceptable level of safety for each product/
                                                        tank car combination. ``Closed-Acceptable''
R-95-011.....................  February 10, 1997.....  DOT and FRA determine periodic inspection interval and
                                                        testing techniques for rail tank car linings and
                                                        coatings, and provide them to parties responsible for
                                                        inspection and testing of tank cars. ``Closed-
                                                        Acceptable''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      RECOMMENDATIONS (CLOSED-UNACCEPTABLE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Number                   Date closed                                Subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-85-34......................  December 12, 1995.....  RSPA amend Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation 397.9
                                                        to eliminate ambiguities in routing requirements of
                                                        HazMat vehicles on the highway. ``Closed-Un-Acceptable''
I-85-07......................  March 28, 1996........  DOT and EPA develop and distribute to hazardous waste
                                                        shippers (generators) information regarding shipper
                                                        responsibilities under the Hazardous Materials
                                                        Transportation Act when shipping hazardous waste.
                                                        ``Closed-UnAcceptable''
I-90-11......................  October 4, 1995.......  RSPA develop and implement requirements for improving the
                                                        visibility and effectiveness of HM placards, considering
                                                        the orientation of vehicles after accidents. ``Closed-
                                                        UnAcceptable''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendations Open:
    The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has 24 open NTSB 
recommendations. RSPA, and the modal administrations, if warranted, is 
pursuing appropriate action to address each of the recommendations. The 
disposition and status of these recommendations are summarized in the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Recommendation                                                      OHMS action                                        Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-96-29......................  Prohibit oxygen generators as cargo on passenger aircraft.......  Addressed in Docket HM-224 rulemaking...........................  Open Acceptable Action.
A-96-30......................  Prohibit the air transportation of oxidizers and oxidizing        Docket HM-224A rulemaking to address............................  Open Acceptable Action.
                                materials.
A-97-78......................  Develop records for all approvals issued by the Bureau of         Letter sent to NTSB 09/26/97. Docket HM-166Y rulemaking to        Open Acceptable Action.
                                Explosives transferred to RSPA and ensure all records,            address.
                                including designs and testing, and packaging requirements, are
                                available to inspectors.
H-90-91......................  RSPA require controls for internal shut-off valves to be          Docket HM-183C, published in November 1994, required that         Open UnAcceptable Action.
                                installed at remote locations on all newly constructed and        controls for internal shut-off valves for the discharge system
                                currently authorized DOT specification cargo tanks used for       be installed at remote locations on all newly constructed
                                transport of HM.                                                  authorized DOT specification cargo tanks used to transport HM.
                                                                                                  Retrofitting will be addressed in Docket HM-225A rulemaking.
H-92-1.......................  RSPA provide cargo tank manufacturers specific written guidance   FHWA Report ``Cargo Tank Guidance'' was developed and             Open Acceptable Action.
                                about cargo tank rollover devices and acceptable means to         disseminated to cargo tank manufacturers which addresses the
                                shield and protect top-mounted closure fittings on all bulk       requirements in H-92-1. RSPA will request ``Closed-Acceptable
                                liquid cargo tanks.                                               Action''.
H-92-2.......................  RSPA assist FHWA in evaluating design of rollover protection      FHWA, in cooperation with RSPA, has contracted with the           Open Acceptable Action.
                                devices installed on all cargo tanks manufactured by Acro         University of Michigan to conduct a rollover damage study.
                                Trailer Company and by New Progress, Inc., for compliance with    Expected completion date July 1998. Research is on-going.
                                DOT standards.
H-92-3.......................  RSPA assist FHWA in improving performance of rollover protection  See H-92-2......................................................  Open Acceptable Action.
                                devices on bulk liquid cargo tanks by modeling and analyzing
                                the forces that can act upon rollover protection devices during
                                a rollover accident.
H-92-4.......................  RSPA assist FHWA in promulgating performance standards based on   See H-92-2......................................................  Open Acceptable Action.
                                engineering modeling and analysis conducted in response to
                                Safety Recommendation 92-003.
H-92-5.......................  RSPA assist FHWA in phasing out from HM service the use of all    See H-92-2......................................................  Open Acceptable Action.
                                cargo tanks that fail to meet new performance standards
                                promulgated in response to Safety Recommendation 92-004.
H-92-6.......................  RSPA implement, in cooperation with FHWA, a program to collect    ANPRM being developed and Recommendation H-92-6 will be included  Open Acceptable Action.
                                information identifying patterns of cargo tank equipment          to obtain feedback and information with regard to updating and
                                failures, including reporting of all accidents involving a DOT    modifying the current Hazardous Materials Incident Report Form
                                specification cargo tank.                                         5800.1, and enhancing RSPA's ability to monitor the integrity
                                                                                                  of packagings used to transport HM.
H-93-34......................  RSPA require remote control mechanisms for internal shutoff       Docket HM-213 will address this recommendation..................  Open Acceptable Action.
                                valves be marked for emergency use on all cargo tanks
                                authorized for the transportation of HM.
H-95-14......................  RSPA revise inspection/testing requirements for all cargo tanks   See H-93-34.....................................................  Open Awaiting Response.
                                constructed of mild and high-strength, low-alloy steel that are
                                used to transport HM to require at least once each year, or
                                immediately when visual inspections indicate corrosion,
                                measurement of the thickness of appurtenances (including ring
                                stiffeners) that form air cavities adjacent to external cargo
                                tank sheet material when the cargo tank sheet material cannot
                                be visually inspected.
H-95-37......................  RSPA, in cooperation with FHWA, study methods and develop         RSPA, in cooperation with FHWA, contracted a feasibility study    Open Acceptable Action.
                                standards to improve the crash worthiness of front heads on       with Pressure Sciences, Inc. to address methods of improving
                                cargo tanks used to transport liquefied flammable gases and       crash worthiness of front heads on MC-331 cargo tanks. The
                                potentially lethal nonflammable compressed gases.                 study was sent to NTSB on 08/19/97. A further study including
                                                                                                  parametric analysis of head shield and energy absorbing
                                                                                                  materials is being conducted. Projected date for report fiscal
                                                                                                  year 1999.
I-80-1.......................  RSPA amend 49 CFR 174.25 to include a requirement that volume,    RSPA & FRA reviewed guidance document developed by FRA &          Open UnAcceptable Action.
                                in gallons, and the temperature at which the pressurized          industry-Letter sent to NTSB 03/11/98 to request ``Closed-
                                liquefied gases were loaded in tank cars be entered on bills of   Acceptable Alternate Action''.
                                lading, waybills, and shipping orders.
I-90-8.......................  RSPA require HM cargo to be secured in transportation with        Docket HM-220 to address hazardous materials cargo specific to    Open UnAcceptable Action.
                                adequate restraint systems to prevent ejection of cargo from      cylinders.
                                vehicles.
I-90-9.......................  RSPA require independent inspections of new and reconditioned     Docket HM-220 to address........................................  Open UnAcceptable Action.
                                low pressure cylinders that are consistent with the present
                                independent inspection requirements for high pressure cylinders.
I-92-01......................  RSPA require attachments to all U.S. DOT authorized HM            OHMS reviewed the recommendation and determined improvements      Open Acceptable Action.
                                packagings be designed to minimize the risk of puncturing other   were needed in the general requirements of Part 177. Rulemaking
                                HM packagings during an accident situation.                       is pending.
I-92-2.......................  RSPA revise requirements for pressure-relief venting on U.S. DOT  OHMS is cooperating with the Organic Peroxide Producers           Open Acceptable Action.
                                specification 57 portable tanks used to transport dicumyl         Association who are developing a method to determine minimum
                                peroxide and other products with similar rapid decomposition      vent size for organic peroxides. Testing of three organic
                                characteristics to ensure the pressure relief systems prevent     peroxides were performed at the Energetic Materials Research &
                                over pressure rupture of tanks from a rapid product               Training Center at the New Mexico Technical Institute in
                                decomposition reaction.                                           February 1998. Also the UN has recently adopted an example of a
                                                                                                  test method for vent sizing. OHMS will review and consider
                                                                                                  these options. Research is on-going. Extensive testing is
                                                                                                  scheduled for May 1998.
I-93-1.......................  RSPA coordinate with the Compressed Gas Association, Inc.,(CGA)   OHMS met with CGA representatives and we are awaiting a draft     Open Acceptable Action.
                                in amending pamphlet C-6, Standard for Visual Inspection of       revised pamphlet for review.
                                Compressed Gas Cylinders, to require the use of a thread gauge,
                                such as an L9 or equivalent, to measure the interior section
                                neck threads for acceptance or rejection during periodic
                                examination of cylinders used to transport gases with corrosive
                                properties.
I-93-2.......................  RSPA prohibit the use of cylinders that do not meet the           Possible rulemaking activity is dependent on the outcome of I-93- Open Acceptable Action.
                                acceptance criteria for cylinder neck threads established in      1.
                                CGA pamphlet C-6.
R-89-52......................  RSPA establish procedures requiring carriers reporting HM         ANPRM being developed and Recommendation R-89-52 will be          Open UnAcceptable Action.
                                incidents under 49 CFR Part 171.16 to notify shippers whose HM    included to obtain feedback and information with regard to
                                shipments are involved.                                           updating and modifying the current Hazardous Materials Incident
                                                                                                  Report Form 5800.1, and enhancing RSPA's ability to monitor the
                                                                                                  integrity of packagings used to transport HM.
R-89-53......................  RSPA assist and cooperate with FRA in amending 49 CFR Part 179    RSPA and FRA, in cooperation with AAR, continue to establish      Open Acceptable Action.
                                to require closure fittings on HM rail tanks be designed to       design performance requirements for all closures and fittings
                                maintain their integrity in accidents typically survivable by     to ensure the integrity of closures and fittings in accidents.
                                rail tank.
R-89-83......................  RSPA develop procedures to update and correct, in a timely        RSPA developed improved communication techniques to implement     Open UnAcceptable Action.
                                manner, errors in the Emergency Response Guidebook.               requirements in recommendation R-89-83. Letter sent to NTSB 01/
                                                                                                  16/98 requesting ``Closed Acceptable Alternate Action''.
R-92-23......................  RSPA develop and promulgate, with FRA requirements for the        RSPA, in cooperation with FRA published Docket HM-175A and HM-    Open Acceptable Action.
                                periodic testing and inspection of rail tank cars that help to    201 requiring each tank car facility to develop procedures for
                                ensure the detection of cracks before they propagate to           evaluating inspection and test techniques, sensitivity and
                                critical length by establishing inspection intervals based on     reliability of the techniques and the minimum detectable crack
                                the defect size detectable by the inspection method used, the     length. FRA and industry are exploring methods for performing a
                                stress level, and the crack propagation characteristics of the    reliability assessment of the tank car structure. Research is
                                structural component (requirements based on a damage-tolerance    on-going. Letter sent to NTSB on 02/02/98 requesting
                                approach).                                                        recommendation remain ``Open Acceptable Action''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                personnel issues and operating expenses
    Question. What steps have been taken to fully comply with the 
staffing level that was approved the conferees in fiscal year 1998?
    Answer. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) and the 
Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) personnel office 
worked closely together to recruit suitable candidates for all current 
and anticipated vacancies, and for new vacancies as they opened up. 
Since the beginning of fiscal year 1998, five employees have been 
hired, and we have selected four employees under the Welfare-to-Work 
program. Currently, OHMS is recruiting for five vacancies, two of which 
reflect recent departures from the agency, in order to reach the OHMS 
fiscal year 1998 FTE ceiling of 122.
    Question. Please provide a table showing the authorized number of 
inspectors for each of the three fiscal years, and the number of 
inspectors on-board during those periods.
    Answer. The following table shows the authorized number of 
inspectors and the actual number of inspectors on-board for the last 
three years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Fiscal year                     Authorized   On-board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.............................................          22         22
1997.............................................          37         36
1998.............................................          37     \1\ 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On board as of April 22, 1998.

    Question. For each of the key offices under the Associate 
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), please prepare a 
breakout of the number of personnel to each office for each for each of 
the last three fiscal years, the grade level, and number of current 
vacancies.
    Answer. The following table summarizes the on-board staff count, 
grade levels, and current vacancies in OHMS for the last three years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year 1996--    Fiscal year 1997--    Fiscal year 1998--
                                                    as of 6/10/96         as of 6/4/97          as of 4/15/98
                    Office                     -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  No. of     Grade      No. of     Grade      No. of     Grade
                                                 FTP/VAC     levels    FTP/VAC     levels    FTP/VAC     levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Admin. & Int'l Standards............        8-0      2-SES        6-1      2-SES        6-1      2-SES
                                                                2-15                  1-15                  1-15
                                                                1-14                  1-14                  1-14
                                                                1-13                  1-13                  1-13
                                                                1-11                   1-7                   1-7
                                                                 1-6
Standards.....................................       18-1       1-15       16-4       1-15       20-1       2-15
                                                                3-14                  3-14                  5-14
                                                                3-13                  1-13                  2-13
                                                                7-12                  4-12                  4-12
                                                                1-11                  1-11                  3-11
                                                                 2-7                   3-9                   3-7
                                                                 1-6                   2-7                   1-6
                                                                                       1-6
Technology....................................       15-4       1-15       14-5       1-15       18-1       2-15
                                                                4-14                  4-14                  3-14
                                                                8-13                  7-13                  8-13
                                                                 1-7                   1-7                  2-12
                                                                 1-6                   1-6                  1-11
                                                                                                             1-7
                                                                                                             1-6
Exemptions & Approvals........................       15-0       1-15       15-2       1-15       15-2       1-15
                                                                1-14                  1-14                  1-14
                                                                5-13                  5-13                  6-13
                                                                4-12                  4-12                  3-12
                                                                1-10                   1-9                  1-11
                                                                 1-8                   2-7                   1-9
                                                                 1-7                   1-6                   1-7
                                                                 1-6                                         1-6
Enforcement...................................       23-1       1-15      29-10       1-15       35-3       1-15
                                                                3-14                  6-14                  7-14
                                                                4-13                  6-13                  5-13
                                                                9-12                  8-12                 10-12
                                                                4-11                  6-11                 10-11
                                                                 2-7                   1-9                   1-9
                                                                                       1-7                   1-7
Initiatives & Training........................       10-0       1-15        8-3       1-15        9-2       1-15
                                                                2-14                  1-14                  2-14
                                                                1-13                  1-13                  1-13
                                                                4-12                  4-12                  4-12
                                                                 1-9                   1-7                   1-7
                                                                 1-7
Planning & Analysis...........................       14-2       2-15       14-2       2-15       14-2       2-15
                                                                1-14                  1-14                  1-14
                                                                5-13                  5-13                  5-13
                                                                3-12                  3-12                  4-12
                                                                1-11                  1-11                   1-7
                                                                 1-7                   1-7                   1-6
                                                                 1-6                   1-6
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals..................................      103-8  .........     101-28  .........     117-12  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         research and analysis
    Question. What technical advances have resulted from research 
sponsored during the last three fiscal years by the OHMS?
    Answer. Most OHMS-sponsored research is focused on developing 
national and international safety standards, assessing rulemakings and 
exemptions, characterizing material hazards, analyzing risk, and 
developing information on hazardous materials transport. Research 
results in the technical basis to develop, assess, guide and support 
program activities. For example, in the past several years we have 
gained a better understanding of:
  --Risk and safety factors affecting choice of mode and route for the 
        transport of spent nuclear fuel.
  --Flows of selected hazardous materials by highway.
  --The quality of information obtained through Hazardous Materials 
        Information System (HMIS) release reports, and the implications 
        the report data have for targeting hazmat safety regulatory and 
        enforcement resources.
  --The ability of advanced communication technologies to improve 
        emergency response at hazardous materials incident sites, as 
        well as to help reduce costs and consequences of such 
        incidents.
    Technical advances were made in several other areas, generally 
resulting in improved regulations or other program measures that 
enhance overall hazmat safety. These other advances were achieved in 
areas that include:
  --Research of health criteria, source characterization, and 
        dispersion modeling as they relate to inhalation poisons risks 
        and appropriate isolation and protective action distances. 
        These advances were reflected in 1996 revisions to the North 
        American Emergency Response Guidebook. Related research on 
        toxic gases caused by hazmat spills into rivers, ponds, etc. 
        resulted in improved requirements for dealing with water 
        reactive chemicals.
  --Hazardous materials testing, including development of methods for 
        evaluating deflagration-to-detonation (DDT) potential of 
        energetic materials. Results are enabling RSPA to review 
        critically the adequacy of current safety standards used in the 
        authorization of the transport of energetic materials. They 
        will also enable RSPA to incorporate alternative small scale 
        tests and new criteria into future rulemakings. Evaluation of 
        Self-accelerating Decomposition Temperature (SADT) test methods 
        renewed confidence in current requirements and United Nation's 
        recommendations. Similarly, research to evaluate equivalency of 
        the UN's recently adopted solid oxidizer test with the existing 
        United States test provided a basis for adopting a refined 
        version of the UN protocol. Testing of dry cell batteries to 
        help determine safety hazards they might pose in transportation 
        will help OHMS evaluate requests by manufacturers and shippers 
        to revise hazardous material transportation classification of 
        dry cell batteries.
  --OHMS research and development in the area of risk management, with 
        particular regard to poisons and inhalation hazards, 
        explosives, flammables, and materials in aircraft cargo 
        departments, are enabling better application of risk management 
        principles to hazardous materials transportation safety. A more 
        systematic and explicit focus on risk management in the 
        hazardous materials transportation program offers the 
        opportunity to refine and strengthen how the program operates 
        and how it can better accommodate international standards and 
        regulations.
  --OHMS research and analysis on carbon-fiber reinforced aluminum 
        lined cylinders resulted in the conversion of defense and 
        aerospace technologies to commercial use. This type of 
        composite cylinder has a higher strength to weight ratio than 
        fiberglass composite cylinders, making the carbon type 
        attractive in markets such as breathing air for firefighting 
        and emergency responders. A DOT-Carbon Fiber Full Composite 
        document that resulted provides requirements for the design, 
        manufacturing, and performance of these cylinders. This 
        document, along with five related exemptions granted so far, 
        provides the regulatory authorization being actively sought by 
        a quickly emerging industry.
    Question. Please describe how each component of your research 
request relates to pending or future rulemakings.
    Answer. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety's (OHMS) Research 
and Development (R&D) Program provides the technical and analytical 
foundation necessary to support the hazardous materials program. The 
R&D Program is composed of three activity areas: Information Systems, 
Research and Analysis, and Regulations Compliance. The information, 
technical and analytical analyses, and data produced by the R&D Program 
support national and international standards development, exemptions, 
information dissemination, training, emergency response guidance, 
compliance, and the development of program strategies and their 
implementation.
    The three activity areas of the R&D Program support pending and 
future rulemaking in the following ways:
  --The Information Systems Activity Area directly supports studies, 
        software development, and maintenance to facilitate the 
        analysis and use, by Federal, State, and public users, of 
        information collected in the Hazardous Materials Information 
        System (HMIS). OHMS uses HMIS data to support its mission 
        activities; develop regulations; issue exemptions, approvals, 
        and interpretations; and promote compliance with safety 
        regulations. Information derived by analysis of hazardous 
        materials spill incident data in the HMIS is used to determine 
        the need for and justify rulemakings. Incident data are used in 
        risk and benefit/cost analyses by Federal, State and public 
        analysts to support rulemaking proposals and comments.
  --The Research Analysis Activity Area directly supports rulemaking 
        and is used to assess the need for new regulations and the 
        effectiveness of current regulations, and to perform studies 
        mandated by Congress. The knowledge gained is essential to 
        understanding risks associated with hazardous materials 
        transportation and to develop regulations that minimize both 
        public safety risks and compliance burdens on industry, while 
        allowing maximum operational flexibility and enhancing our 
        global competitiveness.
  --The Regulations Compliance (Testing) Activity Area provides for 
        compliance testing of Packagings used to transport hazardous 
        materials. Packaging performance is critical to the safe 
        transportation of hazardous materials. This work provides an 
        assessment of the level of compliance with packaging 
        specifications and performance standards. It also identifies 
        sections of packaging specifications and performance standards 
        where rulemaking revisions could improve compliance.
    A number of current and pending rulemakings will be influenced by 
research and analysis in the following areas:
  --Cylinder testing and research into new types of non-destructive 
        testing has been and will continue to be essential in 
        rulemaking for cylinder consolidation (HM-220). Such non-
        destructive testing technology provides better evaluations of 
        cylinder safety and cost savings.
  --Classification testing in support of international standardization 
        activities that will facilitate harmonization with US 
        requirements.
  --Research related to the North American Emergency Response Guidebook 
        or for the National Advisory Committee for Developing Acute 
        Exposure Guideline Levels could result in material 
        classification, packaging, or operational changes.
  --Research on impact and fire resistance performance standards for 
        cargo tanks may result in changes in vehicle requirements.
  --Studies of radiation doses received by employees and the public in 
        the transportation of radioactive materials will provide the 
        basis for procedures and plans for improved safety through the 
        rulemaking process.
    Question. How much money did OHMS allocate for Operation Respond in 
fiscal year 1997? How much is planned for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal 
year 1999?
    Answer. No OHMS funding was allocated for Operation Respond in 
fiscal year 1997, nor has any been allocated for Operation Respond 
activities in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. RSPA has identified 
Operation Respond Institute's computer software and training courses as 
eligible uses of grant funds made available annually to the 
Department's Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning (HMEP) grant 
recipients.
    Question. Is DOT developing a coordinated approach to funding 
Operation Respond? Please comment on other agencies' support, and 
display the total coordinated fiscal year 1999 request for the program.
    Answer. FRA, FHWA, and RSPA have taken a coordinated approach to 
Operation Respond. With the transition of Operation Respond from its 
developmental and demonstration phase to an independently operated 
foundation, the Operating Administrations continue to evaluate the 
extent of their prior support and the potential for further direct 
support of Operation Respond activities. At this time, it is our 
understanding that FRA is requesting $103,000 for Operation Respond in 
the fiscal year 1999 budget. Neither FHWA nor RSPA have included funds 
for Operation Respond in their fiscal year 1999 budgets. RSPA has 
identified Operation Respond Institute's computer software and training 
courses as eligible uses of grant funds made available annually to the 
Department's Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning grant recipients.
                   inspection and enforcement program
    Question. In fiscal year 1997, $1,339,600 in penalties were 
assessed. Were these funds collected? What happens to monies collected 
in penalties by the Office of Hazardous Materials?
    Answer. The corrected total for 1997 assessments is $1,341,329. The 
amount which was collected in 1997 was $1,341,329. The penalties which 
RSPA collects are placed in the general fund at the U.S. Treasury.
    Question. Please present detailed data for the last three years on 
the number of hazmat inspectors on board.
    Answer. The following table shows the authorized number of 
inspectors and the actual number of inspectors on-board for the last 
three years:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Fiscal year                     Authorized   On-board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.............................................          22         22
1997.............................................          37         36
1998.............................................          37     \1\ 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On board as of April 22, 1998.

    Question. Please describe how OHMS measures productivity. Include 
average number of enforcement cases, warnings issued, amounts of civil 
penalties assessed, and the amounts collected. Please evaluate these 
data on a per inspector or similar normalized basis.
    Answer. The following table provides the requested information:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1995          1996 \1\          1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Initiated.................................................             246             239             192
Tickets Initiated...............................................  ..............              84             171
Cases Closed....................................................             189             189             200
Tickets Closed..................................................  ..............              62             145
Case Penalties Collected........................................      $1,047,842        $900,418      $1,164,154
Ticket Penalties Collected......................................  ..............         $70,725        $177,175
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Penalties Collected.................................      $1,047,842        $971,143      $1,341,329
Warning Letters.................................................             168             166             249
Work Years of Effort............................................            18.0           19.75            28.0
Cases Initiated/Work-Year.......................................            13.7            12.1             6.9
Cases Closed/Work-Year..........................................            10.5             9.6             7.1
Penalties.......................................................         $58,213         $45,693         $41,577
Warning Letters/Work-Year.......................................             9.3             8.4             8.9
Tickets Issued/Work-Year........................................  ..............  ..............             6.1
Tickets Close/Work-Year.........................................  ..............  ..............             5.2
Ticket Penalties/Work-Year......................................  ..............  ..............          $6,328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tickets are not included in the per-work-year statistics because the first activity did not occur until June
  1996.

    Question. Please calculate the average settlement percentage 
[amount of civil penalties collected for valid claims divided by the 
amount of civil penalties originally assessed for valid claims] for 
these hazmat cases. Please provide compatible data to that provided 
last year.
    Answer. The following table provides the requested information:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1995          1996 \1\        1997 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalties Proposed..............................................      $1,540,391      $1,358,225      $1,608,095
Penalties Collected.............................................      $1,047,842        $900,418      $1,164,154
Percentage Collected............................................              68              66              72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include tickets.

    Question. As evidenced by OHMS inspections, what is the overall 
level of compliance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations? What 
innovative or new strategies are you using to improve your impact on 
compliance?
    Answer. RSPA can continue to report that a majority of its 
inspections have found no violations of the regulations, although it is 
difficult to determine a precise rate of compliance (or noncompliance) 
for any given year. This is due in part to the fact that enforcement 
actions initiated in a given year may be based on inspections conducted 
in the previous year. Also, many inspections are initiated on the basis 
of prior allegations of non-compliance and thus are not an unbiased 
sample of the regulated community. An approximate measure can be 
derived, however, from the total number of inspections, cases and 
workload processed. For example, from 1993 through 1997, RSPA conducted 
5,922 inspections, and initiated 1,184 civil penalty cases and issued 
850 warning letters based on those inspections. Using the previously 
mentioned simplistic method, this would equate to a 34 percent rate of 
noncompliance for that five-year period.
    With the training of the last of the inspectors hired in fiscal 
year 1997 by the end of fiscal year 1998, RSPA is increasing the number 
of compliance inspections conducted, particularly inspections of 
shippers. RSPA's regional hazardous materials offices also have an 
important mission to provide technical assistance and training to State 
and local enforcement and response personnel, and industry and the 
public through presentations, seminars, and workshops. The additional 
inspector resources will allow these offices to perform more of these 
activities to improve compliance. In fiscal year 1998, we are working 
with our State partners to better target both enforcement and 
informational efforts to maximize compliance with HM-200. RSPA is 
working with the Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement 
Development's (COHMED) Research, Feedback and Evaluation Committee to 
identify and evaluate compliance with the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations using State Enforcement Personnel. This initiative will 
provide data necessary for developing future training and outreach 
materials directly targeted at areas of noncompliance. RSPA hosted 
outreach meetings in the States of Nebraska, Texas, Georgia, and 
Washington to advise participants of the new intrastate regulations and 
how those regulations will affect the hazardous materials 
transportation industry. We are also working with FHWA to develop an 
electronic intrastate database which will be used by FHWA to develop an 
enforcement strategy and to determine the effectiveness of HM-200 in 
contributing to a reduction in highway-related incidents involving the 
intrastate transportation of hazardous materials.
    Also, as part of our efforts to improve compliance, RSPA 
implemented an interagency agreement with the Department of Defense for 
package testing. Package testing is on-going. RSPA is continuing its 
limited materials testing program to determine if shippers are properly 
classifying the hazardous materials they are offering for 
transportation.
    Finally, RSPA has strengthened the Hazardous Materials Information 
Center which assists shippers, carriers, packaging manufacturers, 
enforcement personnel, and others in their understanding of 
requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations for the purpose of 
maximizing voluntary compliance. In addition, the Center staffs the 
statutory mandated toll-free number for transporters of hazardous 
materials, and others, to report possible violations of the HMR or any 
order or regulation issued under Federal hazardous materials 
transportation law.
    Question. Please provide a detailed explanation on how compliance 
will increase, or decrease with the implementation of HM-200. How will 
this affect the RSPA workload?
    Answer. The majority of companies who will be subject to the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations when HM-200 is implemented will be 
small companies who lack detailed knowledge about the regulations. RSPA 
does not expect the workload to increase under HM-200. RSPA's 
inspection workload is based on inspectors performing a specified 
number of weeks of inspection travel per year. RSPA plans to take steps 
to increase awareness of the Hazardous Materials Regulations through 
additional training and outreach activities. Over 500,000 copies of HM-
200 ``Intrastate Transportation'' brochures were distributed through 
FHWA, the Chemical Education Foundation (CEF), the Cooperative 
Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED) and through direct 
mailings to Federal, State and local governments, industry associations 
and private sector organizations. These informational brochures on HM-
200 provide emphasis on agricultural operations, materials of trade 
exceptions, and regulatory requirements. Over 300,000 copies of RSPA's 
Safety Alert, which highlights five Federal Register publications, 
including HM-200, were distributed to targeted audiences through 
COHMED, CEF and direct mailings. RSPA will continue to work with Farm 
Bureau News, published weekly by the American Farm Bureau Federation, 
in reprinting and distributing HM-200 information to its membership of 
over 4.5 million farm families through 2,700 Farm Bureaus in 50 states. 
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has also 
agreed to reprint and distribute the information in its newsletter. 
RSPA will also initiate a partnership with the Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance's Public Affairs Outreach Strategy Team to prepare and 
implement an information outreach plan that will target shippers and 
carriers now subject to HM-200 and law enforcement transportation 
officials at Federal, State, and local governments to promote 
compliance and improve highway safety by ensuring the quality and 
uniformity of roadside inspections and other enforcement activities.
    Question. What will be the associated costs to the hazmat industry 
for intrastate carriers and shippers to come into compliance with this 
new provision?
    Answer. The final regulatory evaluation prepared in support of 
Docket HM-200, Hazardous Materials in Intrastate Commerce, estimated 
increased annual costs in the amount of $612,050 associated with 
required revisions to shipping papers, training, marking and placarding 
of motor vehicles, preparation of hazardous materials incident reports, 
and maintenance of emergency response telephone numbers. In addition, 
operators of approximately 10,000 non-specification cargo tank motor 
vehicles are expected to incur additional costs of approximately 
$1,080,000 per year ($108 per cargo tank) for required inspections and 
testing.
    Question. How does the Office of Hazardous Materials prioritize and 
select hazmat shippers and manufacturers for inspections?
    Answer. RSPA targets shippers of high risk hazardous materials, 
such as explosives and materials highly toxic by inhalation, and 
reviews hazardous materials incident reports to identify shippers 
frequently mentioned in incident reports filed by carriers. Since 
fiscal year 1997, RSPA has been placing extra emphasis on inspecting 
shippers who offer hazardous materials for air transportation. We give 
priority to complaints and to re-inspections of companies previously 
subject to penalty actions. We follow-up on leads developed during 
inspections, particularly in regard to new shippers that have not been 
previously inspected. We continue to prioritize our selection of hazmat 
packaging manufacturers and re-conditioners for inspection. We attempt 
to strike a balance between inspections of the manufacturers of 
potentially high-consequence, low-incident frequency packagings, such 
as compressed gas cylinders, and low-consequence, high-incident 
frequency packagings, such as steel and plastic drums.
    Question. How do you measure and evaluate the overall safety of the 
U.S. hazmat Industry?
    Answer. RSPA measures the overall safety of the U.S. hazmat 
industry by the number of deaths and injuries directly related to 
hazmat releases in commercial transportation and the amount of hazmat 
released to the environment. The U.S. hazmat industry has an impressive 
safety record. Not only in absolute terms, but given the high levels of 
hazmat traffic and compared with the safety performance of other 
freight transport sectors, the hazmat safety record is very strong.
    Hazmat traffic pervades the U.S. economy, with the number of hazmat 
shipments exceeding 800,000 per day (300 million shipments annually). 
Compared with other freight sectors, hazmat trucking aptly demonstrates 
the industry's safety performance. For example, hazmat truck traffic is 
about 5 percent of total trucking industry truck traffic, yet hazmat 
related trucking fatalities are well below 1 percent of the trucking 
industry's total fatalities.
    Hazmat traffic, along with freight traffic in general, is likely to 
grow along with in the U.S. economy as a whole. Moreover, the 
complexity of this additional traffic is likely to increase, as export/
import flows increase; driver turnover in the trucking sector persists; 
and the use of intermodal shipping expands. RSPA'S safety monitoring 
and evaluation efforts will necessarily heighten their focus in such as 
areas as border traffic; other import/export gateways; and in the 
transfer of cargos between modes within the U.S.
    Question. What changes in enforcement philosophy or practice have 
you made since last year?
    Answer. RSPA has dedicated up to one work-year of effort in each of 
its five regional offices to expanded outreach to the DOT modal 
administrations, other Federal agencies, State and local enforcement 
agencies, and the regulated industry. RSPA's regional hazardous 
materials offices provide technical assistance and training to State 
and local enforcement and response personnel, and industry and the 
public through presentations, seminars, and workshops. Our additional 
inspector resources will allow these offices to perform more of these 
activities to improve compliance. We are also working more closely with 
the DOT modal administrations through information sharing, planning and 
joint inspections. In addition, we are actively soliciting information 
from State enforcement agencies about noncompliance in areas under 
RSPA's jurisdiction and conducting joint inspections with various State 
enforcement agencies.
    Question. What is DOT doing to ensure timely prosecution of all 
parties responsible for the ValuJet crash? Please present a chronology 
of enforcement actions.
    Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for 
initiating enforcement actions based on the ValuJet accident, and is in 
the final stages of their review.
                           rulemaking support
    Question. Please describe the status of performance-based 
rulemaking at OHMS.
    Answer. Experience gained since 1990 when RSPA first issued a final 
rule in Docket HM-181, Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards, shows 
that the new performance standards are very effective in preventing the 
release of hazardous materials under normal conditions of 
transportation. Additionally, the rules are well understood by 
packaging manufacturers, shippers, and carriers alike, thereby 
resulting in an increased level of voluntary compliance by the affected 
parties. Based upon its positive experience with respect to non-bulk 
packaging standards, RSPA subsequently applied performance-based 
standards to the use of intermediate bulk containers. Here, also, our 
experience is very positive.
    Currently, RSPA is in the process of developing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking in Docket HM-220, Requirements for DOT 
Specification Cylinders, that would apply where possible performance-
based standards in place of detailed specifications for design and 
materials of construction that have been in place for most of this 
century. We believe that the performance-based standards will result in 
improved safety while allowing industry the opportunity to exercise 
greater flexibility in adapting their products to new technological 
developments.
    Question. Could you prioritize your rulemakings in a manner similar 
to the RAP process of OPS?
    Answer. While OHMS does not employ a complex scoring system like 
that used by OPS in its Risk Assessment Prioritization (RAP) process, 
we have a dynamic process for allocating resources to particular 
rulemaking activities which provides the flexibility we believe is 
necessary to respond effectively to long-term safety initiatives, as 
well as urgent safety issues like those revealed following the ValuJet 
incident in 1996. Currently, OHMS reviews data contained in the 
Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (HMIS), evaluates the 
merits of petitions for rulemaking submitted by industry and other 
interested persons, and periodically meets with the public in town 
meetings and other outreach forums to hear concerns regarding our 
management of the hazardous materials transportation safety program. We 
assess all of that information in light of overall priorities 
established by the Secretary and then rank each active rulemaking 
initiative on a priority scale of 1 to 3. The results of our 
prioritization of rulemakings is publicly communicated twice yearly 
through the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and De-regulatory 
Actions.
    Question. How could OHMS make more effective use of negotiated 
rulemakings?
    Answer. Currently, OHMS is evaluating two rulemakings as candidates 
for negotiated rulemaking: Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles in Liquefied 
Compressed Gas Service (HM-225A) and Hazardous Materials Registration 
and Fee Assessment (HM-208C). In both cases, there is no clear 
consensus among RSPA, the regulated industry, and other affected 
parties on how to achieve the desired outcomes in a manner that 
achieves the greatest benefits. RSPA believes that the negotiated 
rulemaking process may be a more appropriate forum for resolution of 
the issues surrounding these two rules than the traditional approach to 
rulemaking. OHMS is aware of the value of negotiated rulemakings and 
will continue to assess future candidate rulemakings, as warranted.
    Question. Please list all pending dockets and rulemakings before 
the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. Please specify the date of 
origin of those regulatory dockets and their expected completion dates.
    Answer. A listing of pending rulemaking actions for calendar year 
1998 is provided as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Rulemaking project                                 Summary                                                   Current status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Amendments (HM-   To make miscellaneous revisions to the HMR that are not    Initiated: 5/93 NPRM published: 9/24/97 Final rule
 166Y).                          significant or controversial.                              anticipated: 6/98.
Withdrawal of Radiation         Removes requirement for establishment of an in-depth       Direct-Final rule published: 9/2/97 Comment period closed: 9/
 Protection Program (HM-169B).   radiation protection program.                              30/97 Adverse comments received. Final rule withdrawing
                                                                                            Direct-Final Rule published: 9/30/97 Final rule extending
                                                                                            compliance date published: 9/30/97 NPRM published: 9/30/97
                                                                                            Comment period closed: 2/13/98 Final rule anticipated: 9/98.
Hazardous Materials             Yearly revision to the regulations to make non-            Project identified: 10/97 Final rule anticipated: 9/98.
 Regulations: Miscellaneous      significant corrections of typos, spelling, etc.
 Corrections (HM-189O).
Hazardous Materials             To propose changes in the registration and fee assessment  Project identified: 5/97 NPRM anticipated: 9/98--Considering
 Registration and Fee            requirements for persons engaged in the transportation     negotiated rulemaking.
 Assessment (HM-208C)            of hazardous materials.
Safeguarding Food from          Requests comments concerning options relative to           SFTA: 11/90 ANPRM published: 2/20/91 NPRM published: 5/21/93
 Contamination During            regulations to ensure that food and other consumer         Further action undetermined pending legislation to transfer
 Transportation (FS-1).          products are not made unsafe as a result of certain        program.
                                 transportation practices.
Tank Cars and Cargo Tank Motor  To allow the use of signaling systems (sensors, alarms,    Initiated: 2/92 NPRM published: 9/14/92 Final rule
 Vehicles: Attendance            electronic surveillance equipment) to satisfy the          anticipated: 12/98.
 Requirements (HM-212).          attendance requirements unloading tanks cars and for
                                 loading cargo tank motor vehicles.
Requirements for Cargo Tanks    To make revisions and updates to the requirements for the  Project Identified: 6/96 FHWA's OMC has lead. NPRM
 (HM-213).                       manufacture, maintenance and use of specification cargo    anticipated: 6/98.
                                 tanks.
Harmonization with UN           Revises the HMR by incorporating changes based on the      Project identified: 10/97 NPRM anticipated: 6/98.
 Recommendations, ICAO           most recent changes to the UN Recommendations, ICAO, and
 Technical Instructions, and     IMO requirements.
 IMO Code (HM-215C).
Specification 3AL Aluminum      To revise Sec.  173.34 and Spec. 3AL to correct a          Initiated: 7/87 Combined with HM-220.
 Cylinders (HM-176A).            specification deficiency related to an aluminum alloy.
Labeling Requirements for       To propose to revise labeling requirements for Div. 6.1,   Initiated: 6/93 ANPRM published: 11/8/93 NPRM anticipated: 7/
 Poisonous Materials, PG III     PG III materials consistent with international             98.
 (HM-217).                       requirements.
Quantity Limitations on         To review utility of quantity limitations and provisions   ANPRM published: 4/6/84 Public hearing: 5/30/85 Future action
 Aircraft (HM-192).              for cargo compartments on aircraft.                        undetermined.
Shipping Paper Retention        To implement self-executing requirement of HMTAA, Sec.     HMTAA 1994 enacted: 8/29/94 Project initiated: 9/26/94
 Requirements (HM-207B).         115, that shippers and carriers retain copies of           Further action pending legislation revision.
                                 shipping papers for 1 year after termination of
                                 transportation.
Miscellaneous Amendments (HM-   Addresses minor regulatory problems, petitions for         Project identified: 10/97 NPRM anticipated: 6/98.
 218).                           rulemaking, and elimination of certain exemptions.
Consolidation of                To revise the requirements for reinspection, retesting,    Initiated: 1/94 Outreach meeting: 2/18/95 NPRM anticipated: 9/
 Specifications for High-        and repairing cylinders and consolidate seamless           98.
 Pressure Cylinders (HM-220).    cylinder specifications.
Filling of Propane Cylinders    Responds to petitions for rulemaking to allow propane      Project initiated: 4/96 ANPRM published: 8/23/96 Termination
 (HM-220C).                      cylinders to be filled by volume rather than by weight.    of rulemaking action anticipated: 5/98.
Hazardous Materials Program     To resolve regulatory jurisdictional issues regarding      Project initiated: 1/96 ANPRM 7/29/96 Three public meetings
 Issues--Jurisdiction (HM-223).  applicability of the HMR.                                  held. Further action to be determined.
Prohibition of Oxidizers on     To prohibit the carriage of oxidizers on passenger         Project identified: 6/96 NPRM published: 12/30/96 Final rule
 Aircraft (HM-224A).             carrying aircraft and in certain cargo holds on cargo      on proper shipping name for oxygen generators published: 6/5/
                                 aircraft.                                                  97 Final rule correction published: 6/27/97 Effective Date:
                                                                                            8/7/97 SNPRM published: 8/20/97 Notice reopening of comment
                                                                                            period and public meeting published: 11/28/97 Comment period
                                                                                            closed: 2/13/98 Final Rule anticipated: undetermined.
Cargo tank motor vehicles in    Final rule specifies conditions under which certain cargo  Project identified: 11/96 I-FR published: 2/19/97 Three
 Liquefied Compressed Gas        tank motor vehicles may continue to be used on an          public meetings or workshops held. Notice published: 6/6/97
 Service (HM-225).               interim basis, even if the emergency discharge control     Authorization expires: 8/15/98 Final rule published: 8/18/97
                                 system may not function as required by the regulations.    effective date 8/16/97 Advisory notice published: 9/19/97
                                                                                            Final rule-response to petitions published: 12/10/97 Final
                                                                                            rule compliance date extended until: 7/1/99 Pending legal
                                                                                            actions.
Emergency Discharge Control     Continuation of effort to resolve issues concerning cargo  Project identified: 6/97 NPRM anticipated: 9/98--Considering
 Systems, Hoses, and             tank operations and safety equipment.                      negotiated rulemaking.
 Attendance Requirements for
 Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles (HM-
 225A).
Infectious Substances:          Proposes to revise the requirements for infectious         Project identified: 1/97 NPRM anticipated: 6/98.
 International Harmonization     substances to harmonize the requirements with
 and Bulk Packaging (HM-226).    international standards and propose bulk packaging
                                 requirements.
Revision and Consolidation of   Joint petition by ATA and AAR to consolidate 49 CFR Parts  Project identified: 6/96 Petition received: 1/98 NPRM
 Requirements for Carriage By    174 and 177.                                               anticipated: 10/98.
 Railcar and Motor Vehicle (HM-
 227).
Revision of the Requirements    Addresses air related transportation issues including      Project identified: 1/97 ANPRM anticipated: 10/98.
 for Carriage by Aircraft (HM-   quantity limits, obsolete regulations, and consolidation
 228).                           of requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Is OHMS considering the feasibility of a risk management 
demonstration program similar to that conducted by OPS? How is this 
reflected in your fiscal year 1998 budget request? If it isn't, how 
much would be needed to initiate planning for such a program?
    Answer. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety continues to 
identify situations where innovative procedures, cooperative 
government-industry partnering, or the application of new technologies 
would provide an appropriate venue for demonstrating new, effective 
risk management techniques.
    There are many differences between the Hazardous Materials and 
Pipeline Safety programs and industries these two programs. The 
hazardous materials industry consists of hundreds of thousands of 
packaging manufacturers and carriers and shippers moving thousands of 
different materials. The scope of the traffic is both national and 
international, and often traverses densely populated areas via highway, 
rail, water, air, and various intermodal combinations. Still, the 
similarities between the programs and the industries suggest that 
comparable risk management innovations may be applicable to both 
programs.
    The Hazardous Materials Safety Program is increasingly linking its 
risk data collection and analysis functions with the risk management 
practices best structured to yield cost-effective safety benefits. 
Careful evaluation of HMIS incident data, for example, helps identify 
where safety problems are concentrated and how regulations, training 
materials, and enforcement can best be targeted to improve safety 
performance.
    This integration of risk analysis and risk management is being 
further improved through the use of innovation, government-industry 
cooperation, and updated technology. For example, we are presently 
working closely with the Compressed Gas Association, Inc. to 
consolidate and update the Hazardous Materials Regulations on cylinders 
which have not been changed in 80 years. We are considering different 
cylinder inspection and testing methods which have been recommended by 
industry. Other appropriately designed demonstration projects could 
facilitate the implementation of more cost-effective safety measures. 
These ongoing risk management programs can be accommodated within our 
existing budget request.
    Question. What would be the benefits of participating in joint 
government-industry task forces on reinventing OHMS? What would be the 
benefits of additional outreach meetings?
    Answer. We believe that OHMS is currently benefiting from its 
participation in joint government-industry activities and numerous 
outreach meetings. OHMS continues to build effective partnerships as an 
integral part of its planning, design, delivery and feedback stages of 
hazardous materials regulatory and outreach activities. This is 
accomplished through activities such as the Cooperative Hazardous 
Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED) conferences, multimodal 
seminars, public meetings, publication of hazmat safety brochures, 
safety alerts and newsletters, web site postings and educational 
teleconferences.
    OHMS works extensively with industry in developing performance-
based standards, and is exploring the possibility of entering into two 
negotiated rulemakings. OHMS works extensively with the Hazardous 
Materials Advisory Council and other interested organizations in 
developing domestic regulations and in harmonizing international 
standards with our domestic regulations.
    Since March, 1997, OHMS has held nine public meetings with our 
industry and public sector partners across the nation seeking industry 
input into our regulatory and compliance programs. We plan to continue 
these meetings in the future. In fact, OHMS expects that it will expand 
its efforts to listen and respond to our stakeholders about how we can 
ensure safe and environmentally sound transportation of hazardous 
materials.
    Question. What might a Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee 
contribute to a reinvention process? How might it be used to help OHMS 
reinvent itself? Improve its regulatory process? Strengthen its 
outreach? Review its functions?
    Answer. OHMS relies on the breadth of experience and expert advice 
OHMS now receives from its extensive contact with individuals within 
the hazardous materials transportation industry and with the varied 
organizations that represent different segments of the industry, public 
interest groups, the public sector, private citizens, and the 
enforcement community. Through extensive contacts and public outreach 
efforts, we benefit from and respond to the needs of our broad and 
varied constituents. Because OHMS' clients range from large shippers 
and carriers of industrial chemicals and petroleum products to 
manufacturers of fireworks and cigarette lighters, and include 
plumbers, hospitals, farmers, package manufacturers, cylinder 
retesters, environmental interests, and the emergency response 
community, we believe that use of an advisory committee would be most 
useful if formed to focus on specific issues, such as compliance with 
HM-200.
            propane gas service emergency interim final rule
    Question. Please discuss the underlying issue of excess flow valve 
failure. What new automatic emergency shut-off equipment technologies 
are being considered by RSPA and the industry? What about remote shut-
off technology?
    Answer. During investigation of a 1996 propane spill at Sanford, 
North Carolina, it was learned that most cargo tanks used in liquefied 
compressed gas service do not conform to safety regulations for 
emergency discharge control systems that have been in place for over 50 
years. The regulations require that the flow of lading must be stopped 
automatically if hoses or piping are separated.
    During the past year, RSPA and industry worked on the design, 
development, testing, and evaluation of a number of new automatic shut-
off systems. Some of the new controls automatically stop the transfer 
of product upon detection of a sudden drop of pressure in the hose or 
other components of the discharge system. Other systems automatically 
stop the transfer in the event of operator incapacitation, as 
determined by the operator's failure to maintain radio communication 
with discharge controls installed on the cargo tank.
    RSPA is committed to working with the industry to develop a long-
term solution to this important safety issue. We share industry's 
concern about the cost of compliance and need to find a one-time fix 
that will not require multiple retrofits. However, there have been a 
number of incidents where leaking propane trucks resulted in death, 
injury, or substantial property damage. We believe these safety 
concerns can be addressed in a cost-effective manner, and we look 
forward to continuing our work with industry and other interested 
parties.
    Question. How many companies have actually had to hire an 
additional driver to comply with RSPA's new safety regulation? Has RSPA 
or the propane industry developed an estimate of the costs to the 
industry to comply with this rulemaking?
    Answer. This rule does not impose new requirements upon suppliers 
of liquefied compressed gases (e.g., propane and anhydrous ammonia). 
Rather, it gives temporary relief by providing alternatives to 
compliance with longstanding requirements for emergency discharge 
control systems on cargo tank motor vehicles. A key element of this 
rule is the requirement for prompt closure of the main discharge valve 
in event of an unintentional release of lading to the environment 
during transfer. The rule provides three alternatives by which 
operators may comply with that requirement: (1) use of excess flow 
features incorporated into the discharge system, (2) positioning a 
qualified person within arm's reach of the mechanical means of closure 
throughout the unloading operation, and (3) use of a fully operational 
remote-controlled system carried by a qualified person attending the 
unloading operation. Other than a verbal account provided by one 
propane dealer, RSPA has not been advised that other propane dealers 
have actually hired an additional attendant in order to comply with 
this performance standard.
    Concerning the cost of this rule, RSPA determined that the vast 
majority of propane deliveries may be accomplished by a single 
attendant by equipping each cargo tank motor vehicle with a radio 
controlled emergency shut-off system at an estimated cost of $250 to 
$500. The first year aggregate cost to the regulated industry was 
estimated by RSPA to range between $4.5 million and $9 million.
    Question. What is your view on the creation of a joint government-
industry partnership to assess the adequacy of technologies available 
to comply with new OHMS regulations in this area? What would be the 
scope and nature of such a partnership? How much would it cost?
    Answer. Since the 1996 propane spill in Sanford, North Carolina, 
RSPA and FHWA have worked closely with both the National Propane Gas 
Association and The Fertilizer Institute to develop a permanent 
solution to this problem. We are also considering entering into a 
negotiated rulemaking with interested parties on the issue. The 
regulated industry has agreed that it is in the best position to 
develop new emergency discharge control systems since it is aware of 
the operational constraints and costs associated with developing new 
systems or modifying existing systems. RSPA is considering entering 
into a negotiated rulemaking or other government-industry collaborative 
effort in revising the cargo tank requirements.
    Question. Has RSPA identified any additional hazardous materials 
research and analysis needs that would assist the timely development of 
improved liquefied gas delivery safety equipment?
    Answer. During the development of the final rules under Docket HM-
225 and the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket HM-
225A, RSPA, and commenters to the docket, identified several areas 
where additional research and analysis may be needed. These include 
attendance at the cargo tank and operation of the emergency discharge 
control system upon the detection of small leaks that do not result in 
the total separation of a hose or piping. The development of 
performance criteria for automatic remote controlled shut-down systems 
and independent approval/certification of such devices may also require 
additional research and analysis.
                            hazmat training
    Question. Please discuss the scope, nature, and frequency of 
assistance that OHMS regional staff provided to State hazmat personnel 
during the last year. Please include data on the number of training 
programs conducted by the regional inspectors for the benefit of State 
inspectors.
    Answer. OHMS headquarters and regional staffs receive phone calls 
from State and municipal agencies on a regular basis. These calls 
involve requests for clarification of regulations, for other 
informational material, and, occasionally, a request that RSPA 
investigate a matter outside the State's jurisdiction. Because most 
State inspectors work in areas other than those of OHMS inspectors, we 
receive relatively few requests for training.
    In 1997, OHMS headquarters and regional inspectors participated in 
multi-day inspections with State personnel in California, Guam, Hawaii, 
New Jersey, New York, and Texas. OHME inspectors also conducted 
individual inspections with State inspectors in Arkansas, Florida, 
Georgia, and Tennessee. OHMS inspectors provided training, information, 
and/or assistance to the California Fire Marshall's Office, the Florida 
Fire Marshall's Office, the Georgia Public Service Commission, the New 
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the New Jersey State 
Police, the New Jersey and New York Port Authorities, the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection, the Philadelphia Fire 
Marshall's Office, and the Texas Environmental Enforcement Task Force. 
OHMS inspectors also conducted a number of inspections based on 
referrals or leads from State and municipal agencies, including the 
California Fire Marshall's Office, the Florida Fire Marshall's Office, 
and the Norfolk, VA, Fire Department.
    Question. Please discuss the extent of interest that State and 
local governments have expressed in the Hazardous Materials Specialist 
Program. How many applications did you receive for the available 
positions during fiscal year 1997 and thus far during fiscal year 1998? 
What do you anticipate for fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. OHMS received one application for the Hazardous Materials 
Specialist Program in fiscal year 1998. We have made a concerted effort 
to get enforcement and emergency response personnel interested in this 
program by placing information about the program on the hazardous 
materials website, by distributing brochures at seminars and 
Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development conferences, 
and by targeted mailings to prospective candidate organizations. With 
the application of the Hazardous Materials Regulations to all 
intrastate commerce, effective in fiscal year 1999, we anticipate a 
heightened interest in this program, which provides an outstanding 
means to enhance Federal/State communication and cooperation.
    Question. Will OHMS coordinate with the FRA Office of Rail Safety 
in the development and dissemination of the planned compliance training 
module for safe rail hazardous materials transportation?
    Answer. Yes, OHMS is currently coordinating efforts to establish a 
working group consisting of OHMS, FRA, industry, and State and local 
enforcement agencies for the compliance training module for safe rail 
hazardous materials transportation (MOD-6C).
                       information dissemination
    Question. Please break out the subcategories of anticipated 
spending by activity for the information dissemination contract 
program.
    Answer. The $520,000 requested for fiscal year 1999 to fund the 
Information Dissemination program is broken down as follows:
  --$315,000--Hazardous Materials Information Center. The Center 
        assists shippers, carriers, packaging manufacturers, 
        enforcement personnel, and others in their understanding of 
        requirements in the HMR for the purpose of maximizing voluntary 
        compliance. In addition, the Center staffs the mandated toll-
        free number for transporters of hazardous materials, and 
        others, to report possible violations of the HMR or any order 
        or regulation issued under Federal hazardous materials 
        transportation law.
  --$100,000--COHMED program support costs. Funds Spring and Fall 
        conferences and the COHMED Reporter which provides for the 
        exchange of hazardous materials safety information among 
        States, local governments and industry on compliance and 
        enforcement issues. We will initiate a Pilot Project to 
        evaluate and determine shipper compliance with the Hazardous 
        Materials Regulations using State enforcement personnel. This 
        initiative will encourage States to enforce the Hazardous 
        Materials Regulations with respect to shippers. Most state and 
        local enforcement is directed at carriers.
  --$35,000--Hazardous Materials Safety Publications. Funds customer 
        service outreach and safety information dissemination efforts 
        which include the revision and distribution of safety training 
        materials, fact sheets, newsletters and other safety-related 
        information; 400,000 distributed annually.
  --$40,000--Hazardous Materials Specialist Internship Program (IPA) 
        support costs. Funds the six-week internship program for State 
        and local emergency response personnel.
  --$30,000--Hazardous Materials Awareness Video--Rail Transportation. 
        Development and distribution of a safety training video to 
        assist States, local agencies and industry to comply with the 
        Hazardous Materials Regulations for Rail transportation.
                shipper and carrier registration program
    Question. Please provide a detailed breakout of the costs and 
expenditures--on a contract basis--for the shipper and carrier 
registration program for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
    Answer. The registration program is implemented through four 
contractual arrangements. Forms and fees are submitted to a lockbox 
bank, which deposits checks and credit card payments into the Treasury, 
provides data-entry services, and forwards data files and the submitted 
paperwork to RSPA at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 
(VNTSC) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The lockbox bank contract is 
supplied through the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service 
(FMS). RSPA is billed by FMS for services in excess of those customary 
for recording financial information. In fiscal year 1997 those costs 
amounted to $42,000. A similar expense is anticipated for fiscal year 
1998.
    VNTSC provides data management services, and operational support, 
including a 24-hour 800-number service. The vehicle used to obtain 
these services is a Multi-Year Project Plan Agreement, which is 
adjusted annually to reflect the level of effort required. In fiscal 
year 1998, $600,000 was budgeted for these services. The same amount 
will be budgeted for these services in fiscal year 1999.
    Additional programming and information request response services, 
including a full-time help desk available during business hours, are 
provided through an on-site contract at the headquarters office. In 
fiscal year 1998, $100,000 was budgeted for these services, and a 
similar amount will be used to provide these services in fiscal year 
1999.
    The remaining $8,000 is budgeted for printing and distributing the 
registration brochure and form, and other mailings.
    Question. Please display the total in registration fees collected 
for each of the last five fiscal years, broken out by use (emergency 
response activities and administrative costs).
    Answer. The information is provided as follows:

                                      EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNDS RECEIPTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Processing fee  Grants program
                        Registration year                            receipts        receipts     Total receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............................................................      $1,910,000      $9,550,000     $11,460,000
1994............................................................       1,397,000       6,986,000       8,383,000
1995............................................................       1,365,000       6,873,000       8,238,000
1996............................................................       1,605,000       6,910,000       8,515,000
1997............................................................       1,300,000       7,372,000       8,673,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How much do you expect to collect during fiscal year 
1998? During fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. RSPA expects to collect $7.3 million in grants program fees 
and $1.2 million in registration fees in fiscal year 1998 and, if a 
rulemaking revising the registration requirements is implemented, $14.3 
million in grants program fees and $1.2 million in registration fees in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Question. For each of the modal administrations that enforce the 
registration requirement, please present data on the number of 
enforcement actions taken against those that have not registered or 
paid the required fee, or failed to present the registration number as 
required.
    Answer. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) opened 339 cases 
between June 1993 and September 1997 that included citations for 
violations of the registration regulations. Additionally, FHWA has 
issued 96 ``Notices of the Requirement to Register,'' an informal 
notice developed for use during Roadcheck 1993, but used beyond that 
exercise. FRA has issued 159 of these informal notices. Since the 
beginning of fiscal year 1994, RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials 
Enforcement has initiated 53 enforcement actions which included 
violations for failure to register.
    Question. What is the scope of cooperation and assistance that you 
are receiving from the Office of Motor Carriers regarding enforcement 
of the hazmat registration program?
    Answer. RSPA and FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) continue to 
work together to improve compliance with the registration program. For 
example, OMC has incorporated the registration regulations into its 
routine compliance review procedures and has issued at least 339 
citations for failure to register or for related record-keeping 
requirements. When cases for failure to register are completed, OMC 
frequently issues a press release to highlight the enforcement actions 
taken. RSPA supplies copies of the registration brochure to the OMC 
regional offices for them to distribute. Additionally, RSPA and OMC 
worked together during Roadcheck 1995 to further identify parties 
failing to register and to obtain more current and accurate compliance 
information.
    Question. What are RSPA, OMC, and FRA doing to publicize 
enforcement actions against companies that are required to pay, but are 
not paying, the registration fee required under the HMTUSA?
    Answer. RSPA provides copies of its civil penalty case orders to 
six trade press publishers. It also publishes an annual Penalty Actions 
Report that includes all actions taken by RSPA and the Department's 
modal administrations for violations of the hazardous materials 
regulations. This report is also incorporated into RSPA's biennial 
report to Congress on the transportation of hazardous materials. OMC 
frequently issues press releases to highlight enforcement actions 
taken.
    Question. What compliance rates were achieved in the 1995-96 
registration cycle, estimated for the 1997-98 registration cycle, and 
projected for the 1998-99 registration cycle for the hazardous 
materials registration program?
    Answer. We believe compliance with the registration requirement is 
greater than 90 percent. This conclusion is based upon analysis by use 
of the Truck Inventory and Use Survey (TIUS) (1987), which provides 
specific data on truck characteristics and other data on 
characteristics of the hazardous materials industry. Included in TIUS 
are data on the number of trucks involved in hazardous materials 
transport, and the number of trucks and/or trailers owned and/or 
operated at the same home base. We were able to extrapolate from these 
data the approximate number of companies, not under lease, using one or 
more placarded trucks weighing 26,000 pounds or more. Airlines and 
railroads are well known, and we are confident that they are 
registered. Compliance enforcement with the registration requirements 
was a key element of ROADCHECK-93 and ROADCHECK-95, nationwide 
inspection efforts sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration. Of 
2,300 placarded trucks that were checked for proof of registration 
during the 1993 inspection, 88 percent were registered and had proof on 
board. Of the 12 percent that did not have proof on board, 80 percent 
were already registered. Thus, there was approximately 98 percent 
compliance with the registration requirement. Of the 1,220 placarded 
trucks that were checked during the 1995 inspection, 91 percent were 
registered and had proof on board. Of the nine percent that did not 
have proof on board, 60 percent were already registered. Therefore, 
there was approximately 96 percent compliance with the registration 
requirement. Similarly, during fiscal year 1995 the Office of Motor 
Carriers conducted 2,338 compliance reviews of carriers of hazardous 
materials and initiated 100 enforcement cases that cited the 
registration regulations. This indicates a 96 percent compliance rate. 
During fiscal year 1996 the Office of Motor Carriers opened 79 
enforcement cases citing the registration regulations as a result of 
3,215 compliance reviews of hazardous materials carriers, indicating a 
97 percent compliance rate. During fiscal year 1997 the Office of Motor 
Carriers opened 44 enforcement cases citing the registration 
regulations as a result of 1,369 compliance review of hazardous 
materials carriers, indicating a 97 percent compliance rate. During CY 
1995 RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement conducted 586 
inspections of hazardous materials shippers and initiated 18 cases that 
involved the registration regulations. In CY 1996 610 inspections were 
performed, resulting in 15 citations of the registration regulations. 
In CY 1997 875 inspections were performed, resulting in 20 citations of 
the registration regulations. These two sets of inspection results 
indicate a compliance rate of 97 percent. We expect that the compliance 
rate for 1998 will remain consistent with the previous years.
        implementation of hazardous materials transportation act
    Question. Please provide a detailed update of how RSPA has 
implemented Section 116 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation 
Authorization Act (Public Law 103-311), which requires the Secretary to 
designate a toll-free telephone number for the reporting of possible 
violations of hazardous materials transportation laws and regulations. 
How has the implementation provision shown to be beneficial, and how 
well is the system working?
    Answer. RSPA's toll free number (1-800-HMR-4922) was established on 
May 8, 1995. Each modal Administration (i.e., USCG, FRA, FAA, FHWA) and 
RSPA has established its own toll-free number to handle the reporting 
of possible violations in its respective enforcement area. RSPA's toll-
free number is a computer operated system that allows a caller to 
transfer to any of the modal administrations without having to place 
another call. In addition, through RSPA's toll-free number, a person 
can receive clarification on the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 
copies of training materials and copies of recent Federal Register 
publications. Callers can also leave a message requesting information 
on the HMR. We have set a standard that calls requesting assistance 
with the HMR will be returned within 24 hours.
    RSPA receives more than 30,000 phone calls to the Hazardous 
Materials Information Center (HMIC). Since callers can access the HMIC 
either by a standard long distance telephone number or by dialing the 
800 telephone number we can not identify accurately the number of 
callers using the 800 number. Additionally since callers have a series 
of selection options, we do not have information on the number of 
callers that select an individual option. We project that approximately 
25,000 of these calls are received using the 800 number. Most of these 
calls (an estimated 80-90 percent) are requests for information on 
compliance with the HMR, the remaining calls to the 800 number are 
requests for rulemaking actions, requests for training materials, and 
reports of possible violations. The Hazardous Materials Information 
Center has been well received and is a very successful outreach and 
customer service program.
    Question. How much did it cost to establish that system? How is it 
staffed?
    Answer. The cost of establishing a system to report possible 
violations of the hazardous materials transportation laws or 
regulations was included in the overall costs of establishing the toll-
free telephone number for the Hazardous Materials Information Center. 
Overall the cost of establishing the ``800'' telephone system was 
minimal and is estimated to be less than $5,000.
    As previously described, callers to the Hazardous Materials 
Information Center can choose from a number of options, one of which is 
to report violations. The Information Center now is staffed 8 hours a 
day (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern time) by three trained and 
knowledgeable specialists (2 contractors and 1 HM safety staffer) who 
are responsible for responding to incoming calls requesting assistance 
on and clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
    Callers wishing to report violations can choose the appropriate 
modal administration and are automatically transferred to that mode by 
the automated system. No staffing for the transfer process is 
necessary.
    Question. How is the information that is gathered through that 
system shared with other modes and agencies?
    Answer. Callers wanting to report violations of the regulations can 
be automatically transferred to the appropriate modal administration.
    Question. How does RSPA, OMC and FRA follow-up on complaints or 
notices of possible violations that are received through this system?
    Answer. Complaints received by RSPA through the toll-free number 
which allege violations by persons under the jurisdiction of RSPA are 
electronically routed to the Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement 
(OHME) through a ``blind'' transfer feature incorporated into the 
system. OMC and FRA receive calls in a similar manner.
    OHME enters the complaint into its COMPLAINT data set. The 
complaint is then assigned and investigated. OHME investigates all 
complaints that it receives.
    The message routing calls to OMC advises complainants that their 
complaint must be in writing and contain specific information about 
dates, times, material facts, violator name and address and/or 
location. Complainants must clearly state the alleged violation and/or 
problem. OMC provides its headquarters address for submission of these 
written complaints. Upon receipt, OMC forwards them to the appropriate 
division for handling.
    FRA follows a process similar to RSPA's. Complaints (hazmat and 
otherwise)are logged in and assigned to the appropriate region for an 
investigation.
    Question. What are the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 costs 
associated with this system?
    Answer. RSPA has obligated the $315,000 enacted in fiscal year 1998 
for the Hazardous Materials Information Center and is requesting the 
same funding level for fiscal year 1999.
                      hazardous materials research
    Question. Please distinguish between the Hazardous Materials 
research and analysis function ($531,000 requested) and the Hazardous 
Materials research and development function ($1,000,000 requested). Is 
there any duplication of effort?
    Answer. Our research and analysis request for operational funds 
complements research and development funding. Research and analysis 
funding has been used typically for shorter term projects in support of 
daily operations, such as responding to immediate needs or developing 
analysis requirements. Evaluating the causes of DOT 3Al cylinder 
ruptures as failures occur, the analysis of testing methods related to 
specific on-going proposals in the international standards arena, the 
analysis of risks associated with transportation of hazardous materials 
in aircraft cargo compartments, refinement of guidelines for acute 
exposure to toxic chemicals, and investigation of automatic emergency 
shutdown systems stemming from recent cargo tank incidents where they 
failed to operate are examples of this category of projects.
    Research and development funding is used typically for longer term, 
planned research spanning a number of years. Examples include a 
national assessment of transportation risk posed by designated 
materials, development of a framework for use of risk management in 
hazardous materials transportation, and research into the impact 
resistance of cargo tank heads in accidents.
    Research and analysis funds often support current rulemaking or 
exemption requests, while research and development funds more often 
support future rulemaking. Research and analysis projects may evolve 
into longer term research and development efforts or transition from 
feasibility studies to more elaborate research. Occasionally the 
distinctions are not significant; however, efforts in either category 
do not duplicate the other.
    Question. Couldn't the research and analysis program be funded and 
managed through the research and development program (particularly 
within the research analysis subaccount)?
    Answer. We believe the research and analysis program better matches 
the short term, operational nature of the accounting class in which it 
currently resides. Perhaps a more descriptive title, such as Program 
Technical and Operational Analysis and Support, would help avoid 
possible confusion between these efforts.
                   office of emergency transportation
    Question. How much of your budget request supports maintenance of 
the Crisis Management Center?
    Answer. We try to annually provide approximately $40,000 for 
routine maintenance in the Crisis Management Center (CMC). Funding for 
routine maintenance provides for a labor contract to ensure that the 
CMC equipment and related software packages receive scheduled 
maintenance and repair to always be in working order. This, however, 
does not provide for life cycle equipment replacement.
    Question. How many times last year (calendar year 1997) was the 
Center activated? For what reasons? How many times thus far this year 
has the Center been activated? For what reasons?
    Answer. The CMC is a multimodal response center fully activated 
when a catastrophic disaster occurs. Less than catastrophic events 
allow for partial activation of the CMC. The center is used daily in 
some capacity by OET and DOT staff members for monitoring or responding 
to crisis events. Luckily the U.S. did not experience catastrophic 
hurricanes or earthquake disasters in 1997. However, the Crisis 
Management Center (CMC) was partially activated three times in 1997 for 
Typhoon Paka, the potential Amtrak strike and the potential American 
Airlines Strike. Thus far in 1998, it was partially activated for 
Operation Desert Thunder, a potential DOD miliary deployment due to 
political tension in IRAQ. DOT supports DOD military deployments should 
there be a military transportation shortfall. The center was also 
activated for training sessions throughout the year, primarily for the 
DOT Crisis Management Center Augmentation Cadre.
    The OET staff and the DOT Emergency Coordinators must remain in a 
state of readiness to respond to a crisis using the CMC.
    Question. What support and coordination did the OET provide in the 
wake of the February 1998 tornadoes in Florida? What other tornado 
response activities has OET performed?
    Answer. In response to the February 1998 tornadoes in Florida, 
DOT's Regional Emergency Transportation Representative (RETREP) was 
deployed to the Disaster Field Office to assist with completing damage 
assessments from the DOT operating administrations, and responded to 
requests for information from the Federal Coordinating Officer. OET 
prepared situation reports for DOT senior staff members and FEMA 
headquarters.
    In a tornado or any serious natural disaster that affects the 
transportation infrastructure, OET continually tracks and monitors 
these disasters and ensures a timely response to all requests for 
assistance. Situation reports are prepared and disseminated throughout 
DOT and to the Federal response community. OET works with designated 
points of contact in each Operating Administration to ensure the timely 
collection and analysis of information, as well as overseeing the 
normal day-to-day activities within the office which continue during 
crisis events.
    Question. Please provide a table indicating the amount appropriated 
and the amount actually spent for the different major categories and 
subcomponents of the Emergency Transportation budget for each of the 
last three years. Please explain any deviation or reallocation of 
funds.
    Answer. The table below shows the three requested years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Appropriation    Obligation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996:
    Contract Programs: Crisis Response          $250,000        $250,000
     Management.........................
    R&D: Operational Management Support.          50,000          81,000
Fiscal year 1997: \1\
    Contract Programs: Crisis Response           200,000         221,211
     Management.........................
    R&D: Operational Management Support.          50,000          36,648
Fiscal year 1998:
    Contract Programs: Crisis Response           200,000         200,000
     Management.........................
    R&D: Operational Management Support.          50,000          76,084
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Crisis Response Management program was increased by $21,211 to
  provide for a new contract startup ($15,000) and to complete the
  purchase of equipment for the OET staff office ($6,211). Funds were
  transferred from available PC&B funding that resulted from a vacancy
  in the office.

    Question. Please specify what research and development activities 
the Office of Emergency Transportation plans to accomplish with a 
budget of $50,000.
    Answer. Funds requested for research efforts in Emergency 
Preparedness are for contract support for the development of new 
training materials or concepts, for research on transportation 
vulnerability studies for the Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium and 
the Western States Seismic Policy Council, and for contract support for 
the development of new systems to support our NATO/US Classified 
Document system and the keyword reference system. In addition, research 
is performed to identify new data sources for use in the CMC. Question. 
For the Crisis Response Management program, please provide a breakdown 
of how $200,000 was used in fiscal year 1998 and how $200,000 will be 
used in fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. Funding breakdown follows. Crisis Response Management:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year--
                                               -------------------------
                                                    1998         1999
                                                  estimate     request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Team Trng............................      $69,500      $89,000
RETCO Support.................................       63,000       63,000
Transp. Policy Doc............................       20,000       20,000
CMC Maintenance/repair (Labor contract).......       47,500       28,000
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      200,000      200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   office of research and technology
                 personnel and administrative expenses
    Question. Please describe the responsibilities of each of the 13 
FTP's in the R&T program.
    Answer. The responsibilities of each of the 13 full-time employees 
in the R&T program are as follows:
    One Associate Administrator--manages the Office of Research, 
Technology and Analysis
    One Deputy Associate Administrator--manages the Office, with a 
focus on university research and education programs
    One Administrative Management and Program Assistant--conducts 
Office administration functions
    One Transportation Specialist--coordinates research and development 
activities within the Department and with other Federal agencies and 
the White House
    One Transportation Specialist--coordinates and facilitates public-
private partnerships
    One Director, Transportation Safety Institute, Oklahoma City, OK--
manages TSI
    One Secretary, Transportation Safety Institute, Oklahoma City, OK--
staff assistant to Director
    Two University Program Specialists--manage University 
Transportation Centers and University Research Institutes Programs
    One General Engineer--supports National Science and Technology 
Council (NSTC)/Research and Technology Coordinating Council (RTCC)/R&D 
planning/Small Business Innovation Research Program
    One General Engineer--manages NSTC/DOT inter/multi-modal 
transportation R&D programs
    One General Engineer--DOT international transportation science and 
technology coordination and assessments, DOT strategic planning and 
performance measurement
    One Program Analyst--NSTC/DOT/RSPA R&D web development and DOT 
Technology Transfer/Sharing and Outreach Programs.
    Question. The Federal Highway Administration budget includes 
$10,000,000 for a new research initiative called the joint partnership 
for advanced vehicles, components, and infrastructure. FHWA has 
indicated that this program and the associated funding will be 
administered by RSPA. Will this program be administered by the Office 
of Research and Technology? Will the program be administered within the 
current staffing level, or will some of the $10,000,000 request be 
utilized for PC&B expenses? If so, how much?
    Answer. The joint partnership for advanced vehicles, components and 
infrastructure, also known as the ``advanced vehicle program,'' will be 
co-managed by the Departments of Energy and Transportation. Within the 
Department of Transportation, RSPA's Office of Research, Technology and 
Analysis will administer the program within its current staffing level. 
Some of the $10,000,000 will be used for program support and travel 
expenses. Based on the current level of support for the program managed 
by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, approximately 
$225,000 will be spent by DOT in program support and travel. This 
assumes that the Department of Energy will provide the same level of 
funding for program support.
joint partnership for advanced vehicles, components, and infrastructure
    Question. Since the program's establishment in fiscal year 1993, 
seven regional consortia have partnered with the Department of Defense 
Advanced Research Program Agency (DARPA) on the Electric and Hybrid 
Vehicle Program, which is being transferred to the Departments of 
Energy and Transportation as a new advanced vehicle program. Who are 
the seven regional consortia? Please list the complete memberships of 
each.
    Answer. The seven regional consortia are:
    Calstart--Burbank, CA
    Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project (HEVDP)--Honolulu, HI
    Electricore--Indianapolis, IN
    Mid Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced Vehicles (MARCAV)--
Johnstown, PA
    Northeast Alternative Vehicle Consortium (NAVC)--Boston, MA
    Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)--Sacramento, CA
    Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation (SCAT)--Atlanta, GA
    The consortia's membership fluctuates on a periodic basis. The 
following information provides a list of member companies under each 
consortium in 1997.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.009

    Question. Please provide the office, contact name(s), and phone 
numbers at the Department of Energy for the coordinating officials for 
this project.
    Answer. The coordinating officials for the advanced vehicle program 
at the Department of Energy are provided as follows:
  --Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Deputy Assistant 
        Secretary for Transportation Technologies, Thomas Gross, (202) 
        586-8027;
  --Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of 
        Transportation Technologies, Office of Heavy Vehicle 
        Technologies, Director, James J. Eberhardt, (202) 586-9837; and
  --Office Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of 
        Transportation Technologies, Office of Heavy Vehicle 
        Technologies, Heavy Engine Technologies, Program Manager, 
        William Siegel, (202) 586-2457.
    Question. Fiscal year 1999 would be the first year of a multi-year 
program in DOT and DOE. Both DOT and DOE are requesting $10,000,000, 
for a total of $20,000,000 in federal funds, and industry is expected 
to at least match this level. Please detail the agreements now in hand 
for industry matching funds for this program.
    Answer. Because the program has not yet been transferred from the 
Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to DOT and DOE, 
neither DOT or DOE have any agreements in hand with the consortia for 
matching funds for the advanced vehicle program. DARPA, however, is 
currently managing the consortia using cooperative agreements or other 
transactions authority. DOE and DOT plan to use the same approach with 
each consortium and will require authorization for other transactions 
authority for this program.
    Question. This would be the first year of a multi-year program. 
What first-year obligations can reasonably be expected? Will funds be 
allocated as discretionary grants, through research contracts with 
Volpe or private contractors, or will they be spent in-house?
    Answer. Both the Departments of Energy and Transportation 
anticipate obligating all appropriated funds in the first year of the 
program.
    The funds will be allocated through a competitive, peer-reviewed 
selection process currently employed by DARPA in its Electric and 
Hybrid Vehicle Program with the seven regional consortia. Hence, the 
funds will not be allocated as discretionary grants, through research 
contracts with Volpe, or be spent in-house.
    Concept papers based on broad performance guidelines will first be 
solicited from the eligible regional consortia. From a technical review 
of these papers, DOT and DOE will ask the consortia to submit full 
proposals for those concept papers that are ranked the highest. Awards 
for funding will be made based on the merit of the full proposals.
    Funding will be awarded through cooperative agreements and other 
transactions authority, which operates outside the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations and involves payments based on cost-shared accomplishment 
of agreed-upon milestone objectives. Using other transactions 
authority, for example, will enable DOT, DOE and the consortia to 
continue this highly efficient and effective process.
    Question. Why is the emphasis of this program on the development, 
demonstration and deployment of ``medium and heavy-duty trucks, buses, 
and trains?''
    Answer. The Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) will focus on the 
development, demonstration and deployment of technologies for advanced 
vehicles, components and infrastructure for medium and heavy-duty 
vehicles to avoid duplication with other Federal programs. Emphasis on 
these areas is needed to convert and apply valuable gains in advanced 
vehicle development for military use under the DARPA program to 
vehicles for non-military and commercial use. As such, the AVP will 
complement the activities of the Partnership for a New Generation of 
Vehicles (PNGV), a program led by the Department of Commerce, with the 
U.S. Council for Automotive Research, primarily focusing on 5-passenger 
sedans (light-duty vehicles). In addition, the proposed AVP will serve 
different sectors of the transportation system, and will involve 
partnering with a broader mix of U.S. companies and research 
institutions.
    Question. Could costs associated with the development, 
demonstration and deployment of magnetic levitation train technology be 
funded through this program?
    Answer. The proposed Advanced Vehicle Program does not proscribe or 
mandate specific technologies. The Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency has funded rail projects under its Electric and Hybrid Vehicle 
Technology Program, such as advanced turbines and flywheel batteries. 
Under the Advanced Vehicle Program, the Departments of Transportation 
and Energy will consider development, demonstration and deployment of 
advanced vehicle technologies for medium and heavy-duty vehicles, 
including but not limited to trucks, buses, trains, and ships.
    Question. Absent Congressional earmarking, how will decisions be 
made regarding allocation of funds? What level of input in the 
decision-making process will the industry partners have?
    Answer. To stimulate innovation and ensure broad involvement of 
industry, state and local governments, and the research community, the 
program will continue the current bottom-up approach to project 
selection, in which all of the eligible consortia and their members 
drive the research agenda by providing initial concept papers for 
proposed areas of research and development, deployment and 
demonstration established by DOT and DOE. DOT and DOE will conduct a 
technical review and ranking of the concept papers, soliciting full 
proposals for the highest-ranked submissions. The program will use a 
peer-review and competitive selection process, much like that of the 
DARPA Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technology program. Awards for 
funding will be based on the full proposals submitted.
    Question. What is the expected life of this program? Please break 
out the assumed funding levels (DOT, DOE, industry match, total) for 
fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
    Answer. The Advanced Vehicle Program, as currently envisioned, will 
continue throughout the duration of the ISTEA reauthorization period. 
Extension of the program beyond that time will be considered as 
appropriate. The fiscal year 1999 level for this program is $10 
million. Outyear funding decisions are made on an annual basis. The 
current assumption on matching shares is that DOE intends to seek 
similar levels to DOT. The consortia will be required to continue 
matching the federal funding at a minimum ratio of 1:1.
                          1997 omnibus funding
    Question. An amount of $2,500,000 was provided for RSPA to conduct 
a transportation system vulnerability assessment. Was that assessment 
completed? Please summarize the findings (or include the executive 
summary verbatim if the report is complete).
    Answer. RSPA and the Department's Office of Intelligence and 
Security (S-60) are jointly conducting the vulnerability assessment of 
the U.S. surface transportation system. A report that summarizes the 
findings of the Assessment, identifies key threats and vulnerabilities, 
and recommends effective countermeasures to protect the U.S. is 
expected to be complete in July 1998. The scope of the study covers the 
U.S. surface transportation system: passenger and cargo, military and 
civilian, private and government-owned and the domestic and 
international elements of the U.S. system. Proper coordination between 
other transportation infrastructure studies, such as the President's 
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, has allowed us to 
tailor the use of these funds to address security issues at a more in-
depth level and to develop a common methodology for assessing the 
vulnerability of the system.
    In addition, this effort involves several directed studies to 
evaluate the vulnerabilities to specific transportation systems and 
modes. The assessment provides information necessary to develop 
policies to protect surface modes of transportation from both physical 
and information-based threats. These studies will also be completed in 
July 1998.
    Question. An amount of $500,000 was provided for a contract with 
the National Academy of Sciences for an advisory committee on surface 
transportation security. What are the accomplishments of this advisory 
committee? Please detail the committee's actions, schedule, and any 
recommendations made thus far.
    Answer. The National Advisory Committee on Surface Transportation 
Security will meet for the first time in May 1998. The Committee is 
being created by the National Research Council's Commission on 
Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS) (i.e., National Materials 
Advisory Board) with participation from the Commission on Physical 
Sciences, Mathematics and Application (e.g., Computer Science and 
Telecommunications Board) and the Transportation Research Board (TRB). 
DOT (i.e., RSPA Administrator and Office of the Secretary, Director, 
Office of Intelligence and Security (S-60)) will be liaison members to 
the Committee.
    The Committee will produce a report in April 1999 that will assist 
DOT in identifying defense, mitigation and forensic processes and 
technologies that could improve surface transportation security and in 
developing a research agenda and strategy to develop these 
capabilities. Because of the immense scale and complexity of the 
surface transportation system and the many potential areas of 
vulnerability, a key component of the Committee's activities is to 
determine promising policies, best practices and technologies that 
could be affordable and acceptable to the public and private owners, 
operators, and users of the system. The report will also assist DOT in 
developing support for and in defining the elements of a longer-term 
strategy.
                        research and technology
    Question. What role does the RSPA Research and Technology Office 
have in coordinating transportation research and development across the 
federal government? Please describe in detail the process of proposing, 
approving, planning, and deploying research programs and projects, and 
disseminating the resulting knowledge to interested parties in the 
public and private sector.
    Answer. As Executive Secretary of the National Science and 
Technology Council Committee on Technology and Executive Director of 
its Subcommittee on Transportation Research and Development (R&D), RSPA 
coordinates and facilitates applied research and technology activities 
of Federal agencies participating on the Committee and its Subcommittee 
on Transportation R&D. In addition, RSPA chairs the Department's 
Research and Technology Coordinating Council (RTCC). Similar to its 
role in the NSTC, as Chair of the RTCC, RSPA ensures cross modal 
collaboration on the Department's research and technology programs and 
activities.
    The process of proposing, approving, planning and deploying 
research programs and projects and disseminating the results are 
elements of a government-wide strategic planning process for 
transportation R&D. The following outlines the comprehensive strategic 
planning process that RSPA promotes for the Department and the Federal 
Government:
Strategic Direction
    In fiscal year 1998, RSPA is leading the development of a National 
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy which: (1) takes a long-
term and systemic view of the Nation's transportation needs (e.g., 
safety, security, sustainability); (2) forecasts trends; and (3) 
provides strategic direction for transportation R&D to address those 
needs. The Strategy expands on the Federal Strategy developed in fiscal 
year 1997 and includes broad participation of State and local 
governments, industry, academia and other transportation users and 
operators.
    This effort, in addition to the individual Strategic Plans 
developed by the Federal agencies in response to the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), forms the basis for transportation 
R&D planning, programming and budgeting activities for Federal agencies 
and DOT operating administrations.
Planning, Programming and Budgeting
    Interagency plans (Transportation Technology Plan and 
Transportation Strategic Research Plan) will provide the mechanism for 
transportation system-level R&D planning across the Federal Government 
and with State and local governments, industry and academia to 
implement the Strategy.
    A DOT Transportation R&D Plan will expand on the ISTEA-mandated 
Surface Transportation R&D Plans, to include all modes of civil and 
commercial transportation. The DOT Transportation R&D Plan replaces the 
Surface Transportation R&D Plan and will focus on major multi-agency, 
multi-modal and modal initiatives that support the five strategic goals 
of the DOT Strategic Plan.
    These two planning efforts will be used by Federal agencies and DOT 
operating administrations to develop their own detailed plans, adjust 
their programs, and develop their budgets.
Program/Project Implementation
    Each agency and DOT operating administration is responsible for 
executing its programs. Procedurally, this step is unchanged. 
Substantively, the Strategy and implementing Plans help all agencies 
and operating administrations develop partnerships, where appropriate, 
with other Federal organizations, state and local governments, academia 
and industry to address national transportation goals of safety, 
mobility, economic growth, environmental quality and national security. 
This will help focus Federal R&D programs, minimize duplication, and 
foster the dissemination of information and technology.
Program/Project Evaluation
    Each Federal agency and DOT operating administration will conduct 
program and project evaluations, as they currently do. Starting in the 
fiscal year 1999 budget cycle, all Federal agencies and DOT operating 
administrations are being encouraged to perform self assessments of 
their transportation R&D programs using recognized Federal (i.e., 
President's Quality Award criteria), industry (i.e., Malcolm Baldrige 
criteria) or international standards (i.e., ISO 9000).
Transportation Assessments
    In the past, DOT has had limited data on the system-wide 
performance of the Nation's transportation system (e.g., safety, 
security, and efficiency) and the impact transportation R&D has had on 
it. Furthermore, DOT has limited data on other Nations' R&D and its 
potential application to U.S. transportation needs.
    In fiscal year 1998, RSPA is completing a comprehensive 
``Transportation System Vulnerability Assessment'' and a Surface 
Transportation R&D Assessment. The Transportation System Vulnerability 
Assessment provides information on key vulnerabilities in the Nation's 
surface transportation system and necessary to recommend 
countermeasures to make the Nation's transportation system more secure 
from both physical and information-based threats. The Surface 
Transportation R&D Assessment examines the research, technologies and 
related programs aimed at improving surface transportation 
infrastructure monitoring, maintenance and rapid renewal, and 
recommends next steps for research and technology to help the Nation 
address infrastructure issues.
    In fiscal year 1998-1999, RSPA will conduct the first assessment of 
international R&D needs, trends, capabilities, and opportunities. The 
assessment will include an overview of international R&D, research 
needed to maintain the competitiveness of U.S. transportation 
industries as well as opportunities for international cooperation and 
technology exchange. The assessment will be done with participation of 
all appropriate Federal agencies and DOT operating administrations. 
This data will be used extensively in strategy development and in 
planning, program and budget development.
Peer and Independent Reviews
    In the past, the Federal Government has not conducted peer and 
independent reviews of: (1) its transportation R&D portfolio from a 
systemic perspective; (2) the process used to define and manage the 
portfolio; and (3) system-level assessments. Examples of these types of 
reviews include: (1) the Congressionally directed National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) ``Advisory Committee on Surface Transportation 
Security'' (ACSTS), a Committee of experts who will provide independent 
inputs to DOT on ways to improve the security of the U.S. 
transportation system; and (2) the National Research Council (NRC) and 
the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee on the Federal 
Transportation R&D Strategic Planning Process. As in fiscal year 1997 
and 1998, the NRC/TRB Committee will review the Strategy implementation 
activities across the government for the NSTC and DOT.
Dissemination of Program/Project Results
    The RSPA fiscal year 1998 funds have been used to initiate the 
development of a DOT R&D Tracking System to provide accurate 
information about DOT R&D project status and accomplishments. 
Currently, there is no such system. This will enable the DOT to provide 
more complete and accurate inputs into internal and external data 
calls, including the Federal-wide R&D tracking system (Research and 
Development in the United States (RaDiUS) database), and enable more 
informed decision making within the Department and Federal Government 
on transportation R&D issues.
    In addition, RSPA allocates funding to maintain a National 
Transportation S&T Homepage for the NSTC and the Department that 
provides a one-stop resource for information on Federal, national and 
international transportation planning, research, technology, and 
education activities. In fiscal year 1999, the Homepage will be 
expanded to include information on private and public sector 
transportation R&D as well as provide an interactive forum for public 
involvement in the strategic planning process for transportation R&D. 
Other mechanisms for disseminating information will also continue to be 
encouraged (e.g., reports and other publications, conferences and 
seminars).
    Question. You have stated that RSPA needs to do cross-cutting and 
intermodal research. Please give specific examples of key needs in 
cross-cutting or intermodal research that you propose to fund during 
fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. Based on a GAO Report: Surface Transportation: Research 
Funding, Federal Role and Emerging Issues, September 1996, DOT should 
perform cross-cutting, intermodal and long-term and high-risk research. 
Because of RSPA's intermodal responsibilities, it has taken the lead in 
proposing such a research program for the Department in the 
Administration's NEXTEA proposal. The Intermodal Transportation 
Research and Development Program under NEXTEA will fund cross-cutting, 
intermodal and long-term research. Although specific projects have not 
yet been identified, previous work by the NSTC and DOT RTCC has led to 
a consensus on six general areas of cross-cutting and intermodal 
transportation research and development. These areas include: (1) 
environment and energy; (2) human performance and behavior; (3) 
computing, information and communications; (4) advanced materials; (5) 
sensing and measurement; and (6) tools for transportation modeling, 
design and construction. These areas have been identified through a 
transportation R&D strategic planning process, as described in a 
previous response, that RSPA has been leading for the NSTC and the 
Department.
    Of these six enabling research areas, funding in fiscal year 1999 
will support those multi-agency or multi-modal projects that are 
expected to yield the highest benefit. Potential areas are described in 
more detail below:
    Environment and energy.--The transportation sector accounts for 
about one-third of domestic contributions to greenhouse gas emissions 
and is the fastest growing contributor both domestically and 
internationally. Transportation sector impacts upon the health of soils 
and aquatic resources, as well as habitat disruption, are often 
irreversible, with unknown long-term ecological consequences. The land 
use decisions made by governments and individuals are long lasting and 
to a large extent determined by the availability of inexpensive 
transportation choices.
    Finding solutions that enhance the sustainability of transportation 
systems requires applications of technology as well as an understanding 
of the behavioral and social sciences. Research is needed to determine 
the technology necessary to design transportation systems and 
development patterns that provide access to economic, social, and 
recreational opportunities such that permanent (i.e., unsustainable) 
environmental degradation is minimized or avoided.
    Human Performance and Behavior.--Human performance-related problems 
play a significant role in the safety of U.S. transportation systems. 
In particular, given that approximately 70 to 90 percent of 
transportation crashes involve human error, there is no doubt that 
reducing or mitigating human error will reduce the human and financial 
costs associated with crashes. Human factors provide a way to address 
issues, particularly in regard to safety, that affect the millions of 
people in transportation. As such, research related to human 
performance and behavior (e.g., fatigue) and to the application and 
integration of advanced instructional technologies could dramatically 
enhance transportation system safety, efficiency and effectiveness. The 
primary goal of human performance and behavior research in 
transportation is to ensure that transportation systems are tailored to 
account for user needs, capabilities, and limitations. This will lead 
to a transportation system that adapts to the human as opposed to the 
human adapting to the system.
    Computing, Information and Communications.--Worldwide, information 
technologies are being integrated into virtually all elements of the 
transportation system to enable greater efficiency, safety, and 
improved performance. Effective and rapid exploitation of these 
innovations will require a substantial and ongoing enabling research 
and development effort associated with system concepts, 
characterization of alternative configurational and technical choices, 
and development and harmonization of a wide range of standards.
    Working with the software industry and the transportation 
community, DOT will conduct research to identify areas of particular 
concern and develop guidelines and tools for maximizing system 
robustness. In addition, coordinated Federal research will be 
conducted, drawing extensively on expertise from non-transportation 
applications, to characterize primary technical areas of vulnerability 
and develop guidelines and tools to provide users with high levels of 
security, reliability, and restorability.
    Question. Please give specific examples of RSPA's successes in 
intermodal research and in cross-cutting research. Please discuss how 
those research results were used.
    Answer. RSPA has worked extensively to promote intermodal and 
cross-cutting research and coordinate the Department's transportation 
research programs. As a result, DOT has been able to avoid duplicative 
projects among the research agendas of the various Federal agencies and 
DOT operating administrations. In addition, research cost savings have 
resulted from more sophisticated program design, planning and 
multimodal applicability of modal-specific technologies. Specific 
examples of RSPA's successes include:
University Transportation Centers and University Research Institutes 
        Programs
    The University Transportation Centers (UTC) and University Research 
Institutes (URI) Programs are managed by RSPA for the Department. The 
UTC Program has engaged research personnel and facilities in more than 
1,000 research projects with the help of $187 million in Federal and 
non-Federal matching funds. To date, the UTC Program supports 14 
centers with 67 participating universities nationwide, has issued more 
than 1,000 reports and involved more than 3,200 university students and 
faculty.
    The URI Program, established under the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, is similar in mission to the UTC 
Program but differs significantly in that all of the Institutes are 
located at named universities, and they address topics specified in the 
legislation, such as surface transportation policy, infrastructure 
technology, urban transit, and intelligent transportation systems.
    The URI Program has initiated and completed over 100 intermodal 
research projects and provided financial support to at least 70 
students in the transportation field. Both the UTC and URI Programs 
have: held several technology conferences and symposia on intermodal 
surface transportation topics; briefed thousands of transportation 
practitioners on new technologies and the latest research results; and 
developed and offered dozens of interdisciplinary transportation 
courses.
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
    RSPA has taken a leadership role in managing the DOT SBIR Program 
to promote the involvement of small businesses in developing innovative 
multi-modal solutions to transportation challenges. As part of its 
participation in the DOT SBIR Program, RSPA awarded one SBIR contract 
in 1997 on the use of natural basalt to reinforce concrete, which has 
great potential for markedly cutting transportation system installation 
costs for highways, airports, and terminal construction. Proposals for 
innovations in nanotechnology and transportation system security were 
included in the fiscal year 1998 solicitation, and are now under 
evaluation.
Partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
    RSPA also served as the focal point for interactions with DARPA on 
its technology re-investment program. Many of these projects are now 
completed: an ultraviolet LIDAR system to measure air pollution, and an 
uncooled infrared sensor for night security applications were 
particularly successful.
RSPA's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center performs cross-
        cutting research for all modal administrations and other 
        Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense
    For example, the Volpe Center supports the Postal Service in its 
management of one of the largest motor vehicle fleets in the world. As 
part of this support, in fiscal year 1998 the Center distributed the 
Environmental Management Information Systems (EMIS) Mobile System 
Software to the Postal Service's 100 field environmental coordinators. 
The EMIS Mobile System provides ``Office-on-the-Road'' automation for 
these environmental program supervisors nationwide. The software was 
developed for the USPS Office of Environmental Management Policy, which 
develops policies and programs to assist with federal, state, and local 
environmental compliance.
    In addition, a core group of individuals at the Volpe Center 
recently formed a team to identify future utilization of this 
technology, as well as any impediments to its implementation. Examples 
of projects at the Volpe Center involving GPS include development of 
GPS coverage models and outage reporting systems for civilian and 
military aviators, use of GPS for vessel tracking and navigation in 
harbors and waterways, human factors studies of GPS applications, 
development of GPS integrity monitoring algorithms for aviation, 
investigation of GPS interference sources and development of detection 
and monitoring methods, application of GPS to Intelligent 
Transportation Systems (ITS), and use of GPS for positive train 
control, hazardous materials tracking, and tracking of supplies in 
support of military operations.
    Question. The Committee directed the initiation of appropriate 
mechanisms to ensure that the Department's Research and Development 
management and strategic planning process is broadened to include more 
input from the States, private sector, and general public. How was that 
directive implemented?
    Answer. RSPA's efforts to establish a government-wide strategic 
planning process for transportation R&D has enabled broader 
participation by public and private sectors in the Nation's science and 
technology policy and priority-setting process. In particular, RSPA, in 
its role in the NSTC Committee on Technology and its Subcommittee on 
Transportation Research and Development (R&D), is partnering with the 
National Governors' Association, the State Science and Technology 
Institute, the Civil Engineering Research Foundation, the National 
Research Council/Transportation Research Board, American Society of 
State Highway Officials, Surface Transportation Policy Project, 
National Cargo Security Council, professional societies, university 
transportation centers, and other state and local government, 
university and industry organizations to expand the Federal 
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy into a national 
Strategy. These activities include workshops and outreach events for 
the NSTC and Department to expand the Strategy as well as to define 
partnerships and enabling research to meet national transportation 
goals.
    In support of the NSTC Committee on Technology U.S. Innovation 
Partnership, RSPA is leading efforts in the Department to enhance 
Federal-State collaboration to meet science and technology policy 
goals. Specifically, RSPA is targeting Departmental technology-based 
transportation initiatives that could benefit through improved 
coordination with and among the States. Potential initiatives include 
the partnership for monitoring, maintenance and rapid renewal of 
physical infrastructure and partnership for a national intelligent 
transportation infrastructure. Efforts are underway between the 
National Governors' Association and DOT to work closer with the States 
in refining strategies to implement these and other regional and 
national initiatives.
    Other mechanisms that RSPA has employed to enhance the 
participation of state and local governments, universities, and 
industry organizations include creating a National Transportation 
Science and Technology Homepage and forum capability. The Homepage is a 
one-stop resource for information on national and international 
transportation planning, research, technology, and education 
activities. The forum capability enables the exchange of information 
among the private and public sectors on transportation-related S&T 
issues of interest to DOT and the Nation. Emphasis in fiscal year 1998 
is to provide additional online access to the transportation-related 
R&D activities of other Federal agencies, DOT, colleges and 
universities, state and local governments, industry and other private 
and public sector entities.
    In fiscal year 1999, RSPA will expand the National Transportation 
S&T Homepage to provide a Science and Technology Forecasting 
Capability. This effort will expand the initial capabilities of an 
electronic consultation tool to allow the transportation research and 
development community repetitive, cyclical consultation with a range of 
technology experts (Delphi forecasting). The responses will provide a 
baseline for future forecasts and for transportation R&D planning.
    Question. Have you decided to open to the public more of the 
meetings of the various research coordinating committees and council 
meetings? If so, how will this be accomplished?
    Answer. Meetings of the National Science and Technology Council 
(NSTC) Committee on Technology, its Subcommittee on Transportation R&D 
and the DOT Research and Technology Coordinating Council (RTCC) are not 
open to the public. The NSTC Committee on Technology and its 
Subcommittee on Transportation R&D are interagency forums for 
development and coordination of science and technology policies within 
the Executive Branch. The DOT RTCC serves a similar function within the 
Department. Meetings of the NSTC and RTCC are Government-only meetings, 
involving review of the Administration's science and technology policy 
goals and budgetary and predecisional information that cannot be 
disclosed to the public.
    While the Committee and Council meetings are not open to the 
public, initiatives that stem from these meetings are carried out in 
cooperation with the public and private sectors. For example, the NSTC 
Committee on Technology and the National Governors' Association are co-
sponsoring a meeting in May 1998 to help the Federal Government assess 
and expand the Transportation Science and Technology Strategy, released 
by the NSTC last year, into a national strategy. The meeting will 
include policymakers from state and local governments, Federal agency 
officials, industry, and university researchers. Inputs from the 
meeting will be used by the NSTC in developing the National 
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy.
    Question. The Committee encouraged RSPA to give favorable 
consideration to requests for university transportation centers grants 
from the National Center for Advanced Transportation Technology (NCATT) 
at the University of Idaho. How did you respond?
    Answer. RSPA has received no such requests from the National Center 
for Advanced Transportation Technology (NCATT) at the University of 
Idaho, but continues to list NCATT as a National University 
Transportation Center in all literature describing the program.
 new contract authority program for intermodal transportation research
    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the proposed 
Intermodal Transportation Research and Development Program (ITRD). What 
is the current status of the legislation in the House and Senate 
authorizing committees?
    Answer. The Administration's NEXTEA proposal would establish an 
intermodal/multimodal transportation research and development program 
at $10 million per year. The Senate bill (S. 1173), which was passed on 
March 12, 1998, would establish a multimodal transportation R&D program 
at $2.5 million per year. The House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee bill (H.R. 2400 (BESTEA)), which was passed on April 1, 1998, 
does not contain such a provision.
    The proposed Intermodal Transportation Research and Development 
Program is currently in conference by the House and Senate authorizing 
committees.
    Question. Please break out the approximate funding levels of the 
planned activities for the ITRD Program (pages 85 through 88 of the 
budget justification), assuming a funding level of $15,000,000, as 
proposed in the administration's NEXTEA legislation. Please provide the 
analytical basis for the amount requested for each of those study 
areas. Please also make the same allocation break out assuming a total 
fiscal year 1999 funding level for this new program of $5,000,000, and 
of $2,000,000.
    Answer. The Intermodal Transportation Research and Development 
(R&D) Program, as proposed in RSPA's fiscal year 1999 budget request 
and in the Administration's NEXTEA legislation, will focus on six areas 
of enabling research: (1) environment and energy; (2) human performance 
and behavior; (3) computing, information and communications; (4) 
advanced materials; (5) sensing and measurement; and (6) tools for 
transportation modeling, design and construction. Specific activities 
under these enabling research areas have not yet been identified. They 
as well as funding levels will be determined through a competitive, 
peer-reviewed selection process.
                fiscal year 1999 appropriations request
    Question. Please break out the amount requested for each of the R&T 
activities for fiscal year 1999 that would be funded with the 
$2,410,000 requested (pages 81 through the top of 85 of the budget 
justification). Please provide the analytical basis for the amount 
requested for each of those study areas.
    Answer. Estimated funding levels for RSPA's R&D planning and 
management activities in fiscal year 1999 are as follows:

                                                             Fiscal year
        Activity                                                    1999
Strategic planning and system assessment......................  $850,000
Coordination and facilitation................................. 1,210,000
Intermodal and multimodal research and education..............   350,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 2,410,000

    RSPA estimates slight increases from the fiscal year 1998 levels in 
each of these areas based on the following:
    Strategic planning and system assessment activities being conducted 
in fiscal year 1998 will continue in fiscal year 1999 with the same 
level of effort. Emphasis in fiscal year 1999 will be on expanding the 
Federal transportation R&D strategic planning process to a national 
level, and developing the second Transportation Technology and 
Strategic Research Plans, based on extensive outreach conducted in 
fiscal year 1998. In addition, RSPA will conduct the first assessment 
of international R&D needs, trends, capabilities, and opportunities in 
fiscal year 1999. While the assessment is scheduled to begin in fiscal 
year 1998, the bulk of the work will be done in fiscal year 1999.
    For research and technology coordination and facilitation, emphasis 
in fiscal year 1999 will be on enlisting nation-wide support for 
technology partnerships and high-priority enabling research. To 
accomplish this, RSPA will be conducting and engaging in workshops and 
public outreach events across the country. RSPA also will enhance its 
Internet capabilities to provide the transportation community with 
complete and accurate information on the Department's and Federal 
Government's transportation research and technology initiatives and 
activities.
    The funding levels for Intermodal/Multimodal Transportation 
Research and Education will be increased primarily to provide 
additional support of the Small Business Innovation Research Program.
    Question. Please provide a table indicating the amount appropriated 
and the amount actually spent for the different major categories and 
subcomponents of the Research and Technology budget for each of the 
last three years. Please explain any deviation or reallocation of 
funds.
    Answer. RSPA's fiscal year 1996, 1997 and 1998 budgets provided 
needed funding to support an approach which focuses on: strategic 
planning, systems assessment and policy research; research and 
development coordination and facilitation; and inter/multi-modal 
research and education programs. The following table indicates the 
allocation of funds for R&D activities in fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 
1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Activity                   Appropriated      Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996:
    Strategic planning..................        $416,000        $416,000
    Research and technology coordination         979,000         979,000
     and partnerships...................
    Intermodal and multi-modal research          471,000         471,000
     and education......................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       1,866,000       1,866,000
                                         ===============================
Fiscal year 1997:
    Strategic planning..................         825,000         825,000
    Research and technology coordination       1,110,000       1,110,000
     and partnerships...................
    Intermodal and multi-modal research          295,000         295,000
     and education......................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       2,230,000       2,230,000
                                         ===============================
Fiscal year 1998: \1\
    Strategic planning..................         725,000         725,000
    Research and technology coordination       1,025,000         875,000
     and partnerships...................
    Intermodal and multi-modal research          300,000         200,000
     and education......................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       2,050,000       1,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations as of April 30, 1998.

    Question. On page 77 of your fiscal year 1999 budget justification 
submission, RSPA is asking for an increase of $360,000 for R&D planning 
and management. What was the empirical basis for this increase?
    Answer. In fiscal year 1999, RSPA is requesting $2.41 million for 
its research and technology planning and development activities, an 
increase of $360,000 over fiscal year 1998 levels. This increase in 
funding will be used predominantly to strengthen and broaden the 
federal strategic planning process to a national level, as recommended 
by the National Research Council Committee on the Federal 
Transportation R&D Strategic Planning Process. To do this, RSPA will 
lead several initiatives, such as Government-wide and multi-agency 
planning efforts, workshops and public outreach events aimed at 
enlisting support for technology partnerships and developing detailed 
plans for high-priority enabling research to accomplish national 
transportation goals.
    Question. How much is requested to prepare and distribute the 
Annual Surface Transportation R&D plan?
    Answer. RSPA is requesting $150,000 in fiscal year 1999 to prepare 
and distribute the DOT Transportation Research and Development (R&D) 
Plan. In fiscal year 1998, RSPA is leading the development of the first 
DOT Transportation R&D Plan, which builds upon the surface 
transportation R&D plan. To address the Department's strategic goals, 
identified in the DOT Strategic Plan, from a long-term and system-level 
perspective, the DOT Transportation R&D Plan must expand beyond surface 
transportation. Surface transportation R&D is a major element of the 
DOT Transportation R&D Plan, but other modes of transportation, such as 
aviation and maritime, play an integral role in the Nation's surface 
transportation system and need to be included in the Plan, especially 
the interfaces among the modes.
                       university grants program
    Question. What are the current challenges and opportunities facing 
the University Grants Program? How do you ensure that only high 
priority projects are funded at these institutions?
    Answer. The greatest challenge facing the University Grants Program 
is the reauthorization of the University Transportation Centers and 
University Research Institutes programs. Changes in program structure, 
funding levels, or other requirements could all have serious impacts on 
the ability of individual institutions to participate in the program. 
Reauthorization also provides the greatest opportunity for enhancing 
the University Grants Program. The reissuance, and possible 
recompetition, of the grants will enable RSPA to adopt changes that 
will reduce paperwork while increasing accountability. By establishing 
relevant, quantifiable performance measures for the university grants, 
RSPA will be better able to assess their effectiveness, both 
individually and collectively.
    RSPA requires each University Transportation Center and University 
Research Institute to devise and implement a project selection process 
that responds to criteria such as regional needs, national priorities, 
priorities of matching fund sponsors, modal balance, availability of 
matching funds, and student and faculty involvement. Many of these 
criteria are statutorily mandated and require a balancing of 
priorities. Each year during the annual review, RSPA evaluates the 
effectiveness of the project selection process in the previous year and 
approves any changes to the process for the coming year. RSPA also 
requires that research projects undergo review by academic peers or 
other experts in the field to ensure that they advance the body of 
knowledge or otherwise contribute to the advancement of transportation. 
Note, RSPA does not directly manage project selection at University 
Transportation Centers and University Research Institutes.
    Question. Please bring us up to date on how RSPA has improved the 
management and oversight of the university centers and research 
institutes program.
    Answer. RSPA took over management of the University Transportation 
Centers and University Research Institutes Programs in 1992. Since that 
time, RSPA has required each Center and Institute to prepare an annual 
plan setting forth the major activities by which the Center or 
Institute intends to achieve progress toward the mission and goals of 
the overall program. After review by DOT staff, the plan is discussed 
with the Center or Institute, necessary changes are agreed upon, and 
the plan becomes the basis for both award of the grant and evaluation 
of the grantee's performance.
    RSPA also requires each Center and Institute to submit an annual 
report describing how well they implemented the previous year's annual 
plan. This is also reviewed by DOT staff and discussed with the 
particular Center or Institute to commend successes and identify areas 
where some redirection is required.
    These actions have resulted in a high level of confidence in the 
effectiveness and value of the University Transportation Centers and 
University Research Institutes programs.
    In 1996, RSPA conducted a program-level review of the Department's 
University Transportation Centers Program. The purpose of the review 
was to determine whether the program was meeting its statutory goals to 
promote transportation education, research and technology transfer. A 
final report, issued in February 1997, concluded that the program was 
successfully meeting its legislative mission and merited further 
consideration at the time of reauthorization.
    RSPA undertook a similar program-level review of the University 
Research Institutes Program in 1997. Unlike the Centers Program, the 
Institutes did not share a single legislative mission. Neither did they 
share the same goals, so their synergistic potential was less than that 
enjoyed by the Centers. Each Institute had a statutorily-defined 
research mandate which, taken together, suggested a collective purpose: 
contribution to the Nation's transportation research agenda. The final 
report issued in the fall of 1997 concluded that the University 
Research Institutes Program was meeting that mission and merited 
further consideration, possibly in a revised framework, at the time of 
reauthorization. This conclusion is reflected the Administration's 
reauthorization proposal to merge the Institutes into an expanded 
University Transportation Centers Program.
    Question. How much is spent on conducting numerous annual on-site 
evaluations? What is the sources of these monies? What are the benefits 
of these assessments and how does RSPA ensure that the universities 
respond to the comments?
    Answer. Each year RSPA staff conduct an annual review of each 
University Transportation Center and University Research Institute. 
Whenever possible, that review entails a site visit. The cost of travel 
for two RSPA staffers to visit the 19 sites once a year is 
approximately $12,000.
    The direct costs of the site inspections are administrative 
expenses which are charged against RSPA's administrative account for 
travel. The University Transportation Centers Program, but not the 
University Research Institutes Program, authorizes the use of 1 percent 
of grant funding for the costs associated with administering the 
program. The program's two funding sponsors, the Federal Highway 
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, routinely retain 
a portion of that amount to defray the costs they incur in connection 
with the program. And RSPA uses the balance to comply with the mandate 
to establish a centralized clearinghouse for the program.
    The site inspections serve many purposes, providing the reviewers 
an opportunity to assess the quality of the facilities, equipment, and 
personnel associated with the program. Site inspections permit the 
reviewers to meet all of the people associated with the Center or 
Institute and to judge from their interaction the extent to which they 
comprise a unified center. Meeting the students is another way to 
assess the validity of the described education program. Finally, site 
visits far exceed written or telephonic exchanges as effective means to 
communicate a center's actual achievements.
    Annual site visits enable the reviewers to determine how effective 
a Center or Institute has been in the prior year; and they set the 
stage for negotiating the annual plan that will be the basis for the 
next year's award. Each approved annual plan is incorporated by 
reference in the grant awarded by RSPA. If the Center or Institute does 
not amend its plan or take a particular action to reflect RSPA's 
comments, then RSPA will suspend, reduce or disapprove the grant.
    Question. RSPA is requesting an increase of $605,000 from the 
enacted level for program support (not including a slight increase for 
PC&B and administrative expenses). Please display the components of 
these programs in tabular form, showing fiscal year 1998 enacted, 
fiscal year 1999 request, amount of increase, and giving a brief 
description of each program.
    Answer. The answer is provided as follows:

     Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Program

Fiscal year 1998 enacted................................................
Fiscal year 1999 request......................................  $200,000
Amount of increase............................................   200,000

    Through the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures 
Program, the Department and its partners will make 1 million students 
aware of transportation careers and help ensure that they have the 
skills and knowledge required to pursue these careers. We must attract 
employees to the transportation field with a strong understanding of 
technology and with the math and science skills which underpin such 
knowledge.
    Rather than create a separate program with a high demand for 
resources, the Secretary charged all operating modes to build on 
current DOT programs and to maximize our investment by working with our 
partners outside the Department. To accomplish this, DOT works through 
the DOT Education Taskforce and the Morgan Education Roundtable. The 
requested funding will allow RSPA to establish and maintain a database 
of Morgan Education Roundtable members and their projects that support 
the program's goals, support working group meetings of the Morgan 
Education Roundtable partners, maintain a web site, and pay for costs 
associated with disseminating information about the program.
Building on Core Programs
    RSPA's plans include operational partnering with the Departments of 
Education and Labor; expanding communication links between Morgan 
Education Roundtable partners so that they may better collaborate on 
regional and local efforts; identifying two or three new community 
college partnerships with non-federal stakeholders; under 
reauthorization, ensuring that Departmental efforts targeted at college 
and graduate students increase attraction of students to the 
transportation field; and, expanding multi-disciplinary transportation 
curricula at the undergraduate and graduate level.
    Through the Morgan program we will help implement suggestions made 
in conjunction with last year's White House Conference which pulled 
together 200 transportation employers and representatives of all levels 
in the transportation and education communities. We will continue to 
connect transportation employers with students through programs at the 
local level. Those efforts provide work experience for students to help 
them learn about career opportunities and to give them hands-on work 
experience. Projects include career days and speakers, internships, 
summer jobs, a clearing house for education materials, net days, 
computer donations, and teacher externships.

                    Information Resources Management

Fiscal year 1998 enacted......................................  $400,000
Fiscal year 1999 request......................................   680,000
Amount of increase............................................   280,000

    For the past few years, RSPA's IRM program has cost approximately 
$1 million a year. Our fiscal year 1998 funding level of $400,000 
covers only 40 percent of RSPA's IRM program which includes user help 
support, LAN administration, equipment acquisition and upgrades, 
programming, training, policy development, security, and IRM strategic 
planning. The increase requested in fiscal year 1999 is not for more 
equipment or enhanced capacity. The additional funding is needed to 
support our primary IRM program.
    Previously, we have funded the program through available operating 
expenses. In fiscal year 1999, due to reductions in our program support 
account and full staffing we will have less flexibility to cover our 
basic IRM program.

                     Electronic Grants Pilot Project

Fiscal year 1998 enacted................................................
Fiscal year 1999 request......................................  $100,000
Amount of increase............................................   100,000

    The Department's Electronic Grants Project is a pilot test 
recommended by the Access America: Reengineering Through Information 
Technology report issued by the National Performance Review (NPR) and 
Government Information Technology Services Board to Vice President 
Gore.
    Through the leadership of the Office of the Secretary, RSPA plans 
to partner with most of the Department (OST, FAA, Coast Guard, FHWA, 
NHTSA, FTA, and FRA) on this pilot.
    The project's purpose is to streamline and improve the grants 
process for both agencies and grantees, and cut long-term costs for 
Federal agencies and grant customers by taking advantage of the 
Internet, intranets and other electronic tools.
    Productivity improvements are anticipated through:
  --reduced paperwork for processing grants,
  --reduced duplication for grantees needing to coordinate with more 
        than one agency, and
  --simplified/standardized forms and approaches for grantees working 
        with different agencies.
    To date, RSPA has processed grant applications manually, though 
some information about our grants programs is contained on the 
Internet.

                     Acquisition Training Resources

Fiscal year 1998 enacted................................................
Fiscal year 1999 request......................................   $25,000
Amount of increase............................................    25,000

    In compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, the Department is 
required to provide training to its acquisition work force. The law 
tasks the Senior Procurement Executive of each agency with the 
responsibility for implementing the acquisition work force requirements 
and certifying the capability of DOT's acquisition work force to meet 
Government-wide education and training standards. RSPA must ensure that 
its acquisition work force has adequate funding to permit mandatory 
training for specific grade levels in the contracting series (GS-1102).
    This funding will provide acquisition core training courses for 
RSPA's acquisition work force as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act of 
1996.
    If funding is not provided, and training is not completed, RSPA 
contracting personnel will not be able to meet Government-wide 
certification standards and will therefore not be eligible for career 
progression nor will they be adequately trained to perform the 
essential contracting support functions required of them.
    Question. Please explain the scope and nature of your commitment to 
the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Program. 
What other DOT agencies are contributing to this transportation 
outreach program? At what funding levels?
    Answer. Through the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation 
Futures Program, the Department of Transportation and its partners in 
the transportation work force will make 1 million students aware of 
transportation careers and help ensure that they have the skills and 
knowledge required to pursue these careers. We must attract employees 
to the transportation field with a strong understanding of technology 
and with the math and science skills which underpin such knowledge.
    While all DOT agencies are involved in the Morgan program, they 
have been asked to build on existing programs. With the exception of 
the $15,000 sought by OST for printing costs, no additional funds are 
being sought.
                     emergency preparedness grants
    Question. What empirical evidence do you have of the need to almost 
double the amount of funds provided for Emergency Preparedness 
Grants(page 132 of the budget justification, grants increase from 
6,572,000 to 12,800,000 requested for fiscal year 1999)?
    Answer. The current level of funding is not sufficient to 
adequately provide for the training and planning needs of the Nation's 
nearly 3.2 million emergency responders. In fact, only a small portion 
of this population is being served by our program. Only 130,000 to 
200,000 emergency responders receive even partial training each year 
and only some of the Nation's 3,000 local emergency planning committees 
receive assistance in preparing emergency response plans.
    While the situation has improved somewhat from 15 years ago, a 1984 
FEMA survey of emergency response personnel found that emergency 
responders frequently do not consider the possibility that hazardous 
materials may be involved or do not know how to determine what 
hazardous material is involved. In addition, command personnel and 
those involved in decision making usually were found to not understand 
the potential hazards of the material or the diverse problems to be 
addressed in a major hazardous material release. This research also 
found that the majority of emergency worker casualties occur within the 
first few minutes of a hazardous material release. This demonstrates 
the importance of reaching additional emergency response personnel, and 
providing them with the information that they need as first responders.
    Question. What would be the implications of increasing the 
limitation on obligations for this program to $10,000,000, as opposed 
to $14,100,000?
    Answer. States and Indian tribes would not be able to train as many 
emergency responders or provide as much funds to Local Emergency 
Planning Committees. Also, limiting obligations for this program to 
$10,000,000 would still fall below the level of funding originally 
contemplated by Congress when the registration program was established.
    Question. What are the pros and cons of gradually increasing the 
total amount of funding for the Emergency Preparedness Grants?
    Answer. We do not see any advantages in gradually increasing the 
total amount of funding for the Emergency Preparedness Grants program. 
RSPA believes that such an approach could further complicate and 
possibly delay the planned rulemaking and States would have less money 
for emergency response planning and training.
    Question. Has the agency determined how the increased level of 
hazardous materials shipper and registration fees will be assessed? 
Will the universe of registered shippers be increased, the fee 
structure changed, or enforcement of current fee assessments improved?
    Answer. RSPA is currently considering the use of a negotiated 
rulemaking process or other collaborative effort to effect changes in 
the registration program requirements. We are open to a variety of 
options for increasing the grant funds for emergency response planning 
and training. Options include expanding the universe of persons 
required to register, increasing the fee for all or some registrants, 
or a combination of the two. RSPA will strive for simplicity in the fee 
assessment structure to enhance State and local enforcement of the 
regulations.
    Question. Please describe the current fee assessment structure. Do 
all registered hazardous materials operators pay the same registration 
fee? Is this fee assessed on a per operator or per vehicle basis? 
Please list the five statutory requirements determining who must file a 
registration statement.
    Answer. Under the current regulations each company that engages in 
any of five specific activities involving the offering or transporting 
of hazardous materials is required to register and pay a uniform fee of 
$300, regardless of the type or quantity of hazardous materials that is 
involved. These five activities are offering or transporting: (1) a 
highway route controlled quantity of a radioactive material; (2) 55 
pounds or more of a class 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosive; (3) more than 1 
liter per package of a material poisonous by inhalation that meets the 
criteria for hazard zone A; (4) any quantity of hazardous material in a 
bulk container with a capacity of 3,500 or more gallons for liquids or 
gases, or 468 or more cubic feet for solids; or (5) a shipment in other 
than a bulk packaging of 5,000 pounds gross weight or more of one class 
of hazardous materials that requires placarding of the vehicle, rail 
car, or freight container.
    Question. Has DOT considered linking the hazardous materials 
registration fee structure to risk, by taking into account type of 
shipment, number of movements, compliance records, or other variables? 
Would such a fee structure be more equitable? Has the hazardous 
materials industry requested moving to a more risk-based fee structure?
    Answer. In a 1995 rulemaking which was subsequently withdrawn, RSPA 
proposed linking the hazardous materials registration fee structure to 
risk. We believe that using a measurement of the risk imposed by a 
company's business to establish the amount of the fee would definitely 
increase the equity of the fee assessment. Because both shippers and 
carriers are subject to the registration requirements, and because the 
nature of the hazardous materials activities in which the registering 
companies engage varies so widely, finding a universally applicable 
indicator of risk that would not impose an overly burdensome record 
keeping requirement and that would not adversely affect particular 
segments of the industry, particularly the smaller companies, remains a 
matter of concern for RSPA. The industry has been consistent in 
supporting the concept of simplicity in amending the registration 
requirements in order to minimize the filing and record keeping 
requirements imposed by registration. Simplicity of administration and 
enforcement are also concerns of RSPA. The negotiated rulemaking 
process or another collaborative process currently under consideration 
will provide the industry and governmental parties that have a direct 
interest in the registration and the related grants programs an 
opportunity to consider how the goals of equity and simplicity can best 
be incorporated into the regulations.
    Question. Please describe the allocation formula for emergency 
preparedness grants.
    Answer. RSPA allocated grant funds for fiscal year 1997 based on 
objective factors using verifiable publicly available data which 
represented community risks and needs. With the exception of the States 
and territories that did not apply, and the three percent of the 
training funds that were set-aside for Indian tribes, each grantee 
received an award equal to its share based on RSPA's allocation 
factors.
    RSPA used the following factors for allocation of training grants:
  --Fifty percent of the funds were allocated to States (including 
        territories) based on their percentage of total population. 
        Population is a surrogate for the number of responders needing 
        training.
  --Thirty percent of the funds were allocated to States based on their 
        percentage of total highway miles, which is a surrogate for 
        highway risk.
  --Twenty percent of the funds were allocated to States on the basis 
        of their percentage of the total number of chemical facilities, 
        as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. This allocation measure 
        is a surrogate for fixed-facility risk.
    We used an appropriately different approach in allocating planning 
funds:
  --Twenty percent of the funds were allocated to States based on their 
        percentage of total population.
  --Forty percent of the funds were allocated based on the State's 
        percentage of total hazardous materials truck miles.
  --Forty percent of the funds were allocated on the basis of the 
        State's percentage of the SuperFund Amendments and 
        Reauthorization Act of 1986 Sec. 302 chemical facility reports.
    Question. What are the measures of success or accomplishments for 
this program? How do you know whether the grant funds are used 
effectively by the States?
    Answer. RSPA measures the success of the program by the States' 
accomplishments in terms of training and planning for emergency 
response to hazardous materials incidents. To the present time, 542,867 
hazmat emergency responders have been trained, in part, using grant 
funds. Also in the latest year, 520 commodity flow studies, which 
identify where hazardous materials are being transported to facilitate 
emergency response planning, were accomplished; 796 exercises were 
held, and 5,647 response plans were created or updated.
    RSPA's grants have supported emergency response training along the 
U.S.-Mexican border in support of NAFTA. Grants have totaled $3.9 
million over four years (fiscal years 1993-1996) to the States of 
California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. RSPA also used the program 
to fund translation of the North American Emergency Response Guidebook 
into Spanish, thus helping Spanish-speaking first responders in the 
U.S. and Mexico.
    RSPA grantees have used their grant funds to train a large number 
of emergency responders at a modest cost. For example, Arkansas used an 
educational TV network to provide hazmat training to emergency 
responders in its communities. North Carolina uses mobile training 
facilities to provide technician training, and Idaho provides hazmat 
training in a training center developed at an unused airport.
    RSPA continues to work closely with other Federal agencies through 
criteria to evaluate the overall benefits and effectiveness of the 
planning and training programs and to determine what types or methods 
of Federal technical assistance would be most valuable in support of 
local Hazardous Materials (HM) planning and training programs.
    Question. Is the $700,000 requested for the Emergency Response 
Guidebook the total cost of updating, printing, and distributing this 
publication? If not, what other costs are associated with the 
guidebook? When will the updated guidebook be published?
    Answer. No, the $700,000 is requested to cover only the costs of 
printing and distributing the guidebook in fiscal year 1999. In 
addition, approximately $150,000 of Research and Development funds are 
used to maintain state of the art guidance, update the toxicological 
and health criteria, update technical data, verify improvements in 
dispersion modeling methodology and improve the Table of Initial 
Isolation and Protective Action Distances for Toxic Gas and Liquids. 
The next guidebook is scheduled to be published during the fourth 
quarter of fiscal year 1999.
                    office of pipeline safety (ops)
    Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated 
and the amount actually spent for the major categories and sub-
components of the pipeline safety budget for each of the last three 
years, as well as the fiscal year 1999 request levels.
    Answer. The following information is provided:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year 1996
                    Program                     ------------------------
                                                 Appropriated  Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information & Analysis.........................       $1,200      $1,194
Risk Assess & Technical Studies................        1,750       1,747
Compliance.....................................          300         300
Training & Information Dissemination...........          850         850
Emergency Notification.........................          100         100
Damage Prevention (Nat'l Public Education).....          500         500
Environmental Indexing.........................          500         500
OPA: Derived from OSLTF........................        2,520       2,517
R&D:
    Information Systems........................          400         400
    Risk Assessment............................          300         300
    Mapping....................................        1,200         432
    Non-Destructive Testing....................          100         100
Grants.........................................       12,000   \1\ 12,35
                                                                       4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes carryover.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year 1997 \1\
                    Program                     ------------------------
                                                 Appropriated  Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information & Analysis.........................       $1,200      $1,200
Risk Assess & Technical Studies................        1,800       1,765
Compliance.....................................          300         300
Training & Information Dissemination...........          860         860
Emergency Notification.........................          100         100
Damage Prevention (Nat'l Public Education).....          200         193
OPA: Derived from OSLTF........................        2,336       2,326
R&D:
    Information Systems........................          400         400
    Risk Assessment............................          300         242
    Mapping....................................          400   .........
    Non-Destructive Testing....................          400         400
Grants.........................................       13,200      13,090
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations thru 4/21/98.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year 1998 \1\
                    Program                     ------------------------
                                                 Appropriated  Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information & Analysis.........................       $1,200        $834
Risk Assess & Technical Studies................        1,200         997
Compliance.....................................          300         300
Training & Information Dissemination...........          820         820
Emergency Notification.........................          400   .........
Damage Prevention (Nat'l Public Education).....  ............  .........
OPA: Derived from OSLTF........................        2,328         742
R&D:
    Information Systems........................          400         400
    Risk Assessment............................          300   .........
    Mapping....................................          400   .........
    Non-Destructive Testing....................           65          65
Grants.........................................       13,600       1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations thru 4/21/98.

                                                             Fiscal year
        Program                                             1999 request
Information & Analysis........................................    $1,365
Risk Assess & Technical Studies...............................     1,200
Compliance....................................................       450
Training & Information Dissemination..........................       921
Emergency Notification........................................       100
Damage Prevention (Nat'l Public Education)....................       200
OPA: Derived from OSLTF.......................................     2,443
R&D:
    Information Systems.......................................       400
    Risk Assessment...........................................       300
    Mapping...................................................       800
    Non-Destructive Testing...................................       419
Grants........................................................    15,000

    Question. What are the current unobligated balances in the Office 
of Pipeline Safety? What is anticipated to be unobligated at the end of 
fiscal year 1998? Will any unobligated funds be returned to the 
pipeline safety fund?
    Answer. As of April 21, the total unobligated balance for the 
Office of Pipeline Safety was $20.6 million. This includes $5.6 million 
for operation expenses; $.9 million for contract program activities (1 
year funds); $1.9 million for R&D program activities (3 year funds); 
and $12.5 million for grants. We plan to obligate all contract program 
funding by close of fiscal year 1998. We estimate that our 3-year 
funding for R&D will have an unobligated balance of approximately 
$600,000.00 at the end of fiscal year 1998. At this time, we are 
estimating a lapse of approximately $100,000 (less than 1 percent) of 1 
year operating expenses. By law, unobligated ``one-year'' funds for a 
given fiscal year are returned to the Pipeline Safety Fund 5 years 
after the close of the fiscal year in which they were appropriated.
    Question. Given the recent improvements in pipeline safety, why is 
it critical to increase the pipeline budget by $2.7 million at this 
time.
    Answer. The largest area of increase we request is in our state 
grant program. States inspect over ninety-three percent of the 
pipelines in the United States, mostly distribution systems. 
Distribution systems have experienced a significant growth in mileage 
in recent years, increasing from 1.2 million miles in 1984 to almost 
1.7 million miles today, a half million mile increase. The number of 
customers served by these lines has increased accordingly. Our top 
priorities continue to be reducing to zero the number of accidents 
caused by non-compliance with pipeline regulation and working with 
operators to reduce threats to pipeline integrity. In addition to this 
work, we now ask States to take on additional roles in helping us with 
the risk management initiative on interstate pipelines and improving 
the efficiency of one-call systems. Now more than ever, it is vital to 
preserve basic state pipeline program funding as close as possible to 
the 50 percent level authorized and provide sufficient and separate 
funding for their efforts to support the national risk management and 
one-call initiatives. Our request reflects the significance of this 
support.
    Additionally, we have requested small increases in program funding 
in the areas of information systems, compliance and training. We need 
to cover increasing contract costs in analyzing incident, inventory and 
inspection data to be sure that appropriate safety measures are taken 
to prevent and respond to incidents. With 20 planned pipeline projects 
starting this year, we need additional support to witness new 
construction, to assure that contractor engineering practices at least 
comply with our standards. Training activities need to address new 
skills required to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative safety 
activities being proposed in the current operating environment.
    In the research area, we have requested a small increase in the 
mapping program to respond to the workload in digitizing paper maps to 
complete our national coverage of data on pipeline locations. 
Additional funding is needed for the non-destructive evaluation 
project. We need to complete testing at the pipeline simulation 
facility of technologies which detect mechanical damage in the 
circumferential direction, in addition to the longitudinal direction of 
the pipeline.
    Question. What activities comprise the 3-year availability portion 
of the Pipeline Safety request ($16,919,000)?
    Answer. The 3-year funding level of the Pipeline Safety request 
($16,919,000) represents all R&D contract funds plus all grant program 
funds requested in the Pipeline Safety appropriation, as defined by 
RSPA's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request on page 148.
                          authorization issues
    Question. Please prepare a table summarizing each of the new 
responsibilities specified in the Accountable Pipeline Safety and 
Partnership Act of 1996 and indicate how and when you will complete 
these items. Be certain to summarize the specific components of your 
budget request that are necessary to implement each of these specific 
tasks?
    Answer. The following table is provided:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Public Law 104-304                               Requirement(s)                                             RSPA response(s)                                Components of budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3(b).....................  Changes requirement to define `regulated gathering line'    Now preparing SNPRM in Docket No. PS-122, `Gas Gathering    PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
                                    from `the Secretary shall' to `the Secretary shall, if      Line Definition' for Federal Register publication by
                                    appropriate'.                                               October 1998.
Section 4(a).....................  Emphasizes requirement to ensure that individuals           The Secretary convened a Negotiated Rulemaking (RegNeg)     PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
                                    performing O&M on pipelines be qualified. Main change       committee on qualification of pipeline personnel
                                    here is in Sec. 60102 (a) (1)(C) and Sec. 60102 (a) (2);    performing operations & maintenance and emergency
                                    requirement to `test and certify' becomes `qualified'.      response functions. The committee reached a consensus on
                                                                                                a proposed rule on operator qualification in January
                                                                                                1998. A proposed rule will be published in fiscal year
                                                                                                1998.
Section 4(b).....................  Adds new language to clarify requirements for               RSPA's cost/benefit analyses already comply with this       PC&B (fiscal years 1997 and 1998).
                                    consideration of risk assessment, environment, cost/        requirement. A government/industry, cost/benefit           OPA fiscal year 1997.
                                    benefit analysis, and recommendations of advisory           framework working group is refining procedures to address
                                    committees.                                                 environmental and other costs and benefits.
Section 4(b).....................  Requires consideration of costs and benefits; exploration   Most of the specific items required for consideration       PC&B (All future fiscal years).
                                    of regulatory and nonregulatory options; explanation of     under `risk assessment' are already required by E.O.
                                    selection; identification of information on which risk      12866 (October 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review.
                                    assessment is based.                                        All new cost/benefit studies will be in compliance with
                                                                                                this requirement.
Section 4(b).....................  Requires submission of any risk assessment supporting cost/ All risk assessments supporting cost/benefit analyses are   PC&B (All future fiscal years).
                                    benefit analysis to the pipeline safety advisory            being submitted to the pipeline safety advisory
                                    committee(s). Risk assessment information must be           committees and are being docketed for public comment. The
                                    available to the public.                                    next advisory committee meetings are in May 1998.
Section 4(b).....................  Requires advisory committees to function as `peer review    RSPA is providing risk assessment and cost/benefit          PC&B (All future fiscal years).
                                    panels' for risk assessment information; must submit this   analysis information on proposed rules to the pipeline     Risk Assessment & Technical Studies.
                                    information to advisory committees; advisory committee      safety advisory committee(s) for review in their role as   Fiscal year 1999 Operations/Travel.
                                    reviewing risk assessment information has 90 days to        `peer review panels.'.
                                    submit a report on risk assessment evaluation and
                                    recommendations on associated rulemaking.
Section 4(b).....................  Requires Secretary to respond to advisory committee(s)      RSPA will respond to each peer review report on the risk    PC&B (All future fiscal years).
                                    regarding their peer review report and their advice on      assessment and the features of the rulemaking before
                                    the proposed rule.                                          issuing any final rule.
Section 4(b).....................  Provides an exception to risk assessment requirement for    RSPA will implement exceptions as appropriate.............  PC&B (None).
                                    rules that are the product of a negotiated rulemaking or
                                    a rule, such as a Direct Final Rule adopting updated
                                    industry standards, that receives no adverse comments;
                                    for a recommendation by a three-fourths vote of the
                                    advisory committee(s); or for rules that the Secretary
                                    determines do not require a public procedure.
Section 4(b).....................  Report on risk assessment and rulemaking program by March   RSPA will prepare report to Congress on risk assessment,    PC&B (fiscal year 1998; fiscal year
                                    31, 2000; include suggestions for making risk assessment    regulatory, and nonregulatory approaches by March 31,       1999; fiscal year 2000).
                                    a useful means of assessing benefits and costs of           2000.
                                    regulatory and nonregulatory options.
Section 4(e).....................  Requires new and replacement natural gas transmission and   The final rule in Docket No. PS-126 directed that all new   PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
                                    hazardous liquid pipelines to accommodate `smart pigs';     lines be built to accommodate `smart pigs'; RSPA is
                                    allows extension of such standards to require               preparing a final rule in response to the petitions for
                                    accommodation in existing pipelines.                        reconsideration from AGA and INGAA.
Section 4(e).....................  Allows Secretary to determine if periodic inspections       RSPA is cooperating with industry groups on advanced        R&D (fiscal years 1995-99).
                                    using `smart pigs' are necessary.                           `smart pig' research to determine if a requirement for
                                                                                                periodic inspections using `smart pigs' can be justified.
                                                                                                Any regulatory action would be no earlier than fiscal
                                                                                                year 1999.
Section 4(f).....................  Directs the Secretary, as necessary, to update industry     An annual process to update industry standards that are     PC&B Operations--Travel (fiscal years
                                    standards that are incorporated by reference in the         incorporated by reference in the pipeline safety            1996-99).
                                    pipeline safety regulations.                                regulations was established in 1996; the 1997 update was
                                                                                                published in the Federal Register on February 17, 1998;
                                                                                                the 1998 update will be published in fiscal year 1999.
Section 4(g).....................  Requires owners of interstate gas pipelines to provide all  RSPA is working with industry, professional associations,   National Public Education Campaign
                                    `municipality(ies)' (defined a any political subdivision    and the public to evaluate existing public education        (fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998
                                    of a state per Sec. 60101(a)(15)) through which its         programs to determine which are most effective in           and fiscal year 1999).
                                    pipeline passes with a map showing the location of the      reaching excavators, operators, the public, and local
                                    pipeline facility(ies); requires by June 1, 1998, the       communities. A survey is now underway. RSPA's Damage
                                    security to survey and assess the public education          Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT) will design
                                    programs under section 60116 and the public safety          nationwide campaign using appropriations and industry
                                    programs under section 60102 and determine their            resources. After the survey is completed, a rulemaking
                                    effectiveness and applicability as components of a model    may be instituted to promulgate new regulations to
                                    program; not later than one year after the survey (6/1/     promote public awareness of excavation damage and one-
                                    99) the security must initiate a rulemaking to determine    call systems.
                                    effective public education program components and, if
                                    appropriate, must amend regulations; if regulations not
                                    needed, send report to Congress with reasons.
Section 4(h).....................  By June 1, 1998, survey and assess remote control valves    RSPA conducted a public workshop on the application of      Operations--Travel (fiscal year
                                    on an interstate gas pipeline; include determination on     remote control valves (RCV) in interstate natural gas       1999).
                                    whether remote valves are technically and economically      pipelines on October 30, 1997. By fiscal year 1998, RSPA   PC&B.
                                    feasible to reduce risks after a rupture.                   will complete an assessment of the appropriateness of the
                                   By June 1, 1999 (one year after survey and assessment), if   expanded use of remote control valves in interstate
                                    remote valves are determined to be useful, the Secretary    natural gas pipelines. If this assessment indicates that
                                    shall prescribe regulations for their use on interstate     the use of remote control valves is both technically and
                                    natural gas pipelines.                                      economically feasible, RSPA will propose regulations
                                                                                                specifying the conditions under which interstate natural
                                                                                                gas pipelines must use RCV's.
Section 5(a).....................  Authority to establish risk management demonstration        RSPA's Notice of Request for Letters of Intent (3/27/97)    Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
                                    projects.                                                   requested eligible operators to express their interest in   (fiscal years 1998 & 1999).
                                   Authority to exempt owner or operator of demonstration       participating in the risk management demonstration         OPA Fund fiscal years 1998 & 1999.
                                    facilities from regulations that would otherwise apply.     program. RSPA has issued a Risk Management Program
                                   New regulations do not apply to the demonstration            Framework, a Program Standard, a Communications Plan, and
                                    facilities during period of demonstration.                  a Training Curricula to assist operators in preparing
                                                                                                their risk management demonstrations.
Section 5(b).....................  Risk management demonstrations must exhibit `equivalent or  RSPA is complying with these requirements in preparing for  Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
                                    greater overall level of safety'; President's October 12,   its risk management demonstration programs.                 (fiscal year 1999).
                                    1996, memo requires only `superior levels of safety' and                                                               Information Systems fiscal year 1997,
                                    only participants with a `clear and established' safety                                                                 1998, & 1999.
                                    and environmental record.
Section 5(b).....................  Secretary may revoke or amend any exemption granted in a    RSPA will comply with these requirements in the individual  Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
                                    RM plan for noncompliance with terms or failure to          risk management demonstrations.                             (fiscal year 1999).
                                    achieve greater safety.                                    RSPA is complying with these requirements.................  PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
                                   RM demonstrations must provide for public comment in the
                                    approval process.
                                   Must take into consideration the `past safety and
                                    regulatory performance' of all applicants.
Section 5(b).....................  Any exemption may be revoked for substantial noncompliance  This will be an explicit provision in the order             Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
                                    with an approved risk management plan.                      authorizing any risk management demonstration program.      (fiscal year 1999).
Section 5(d).....................  Secretary may consult with states with certifications and   RSPA is closely coordinating with the state pipeline        Risk Management Grants (fiscal year
                                    may make an agreement with a state to carry out a risk      safety representatives in implementing risk management      1997, 1998 & 1999).
                                    management program on intrastate pipelines.                 demonstration programs.
Section 5(e).....................  Report on risk management demonstration projects by March   RSPA will prepare a report before March 31, 2000..........  Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
                                    31, 2000.                                                                                                               (fiscal years 1998, 1999).
                                                                                                                                                           PC&B (fiscal years 1998 & 1999).
Section 6........................  Eliminates requirement for two-year mandatory inspection    RSPA's inspection program is in compliance with this        PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
                                    cycle; also eliminates `navigable waters (as defined by     requirement.
                                    the Secretary)' and replaces it with a `substantial
                                    likelihood of commercial navigation' standard.
Section 7........................  Eliminates `shall include' language in favor of `shall      Considering definition of areas unusually sensitive to      Environmental Indexing OPA (fiscal
                                    consider' under AREAS TO BE INCLUDED AS UNUSUALLY           environmental damage through public process in Docket No.   years 1996-99).
                                    SENSITIVE; adds drinking water resources as a               PS-140, Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage.
                                    consideration; deletes earthquakes and other ground
                                    movement.
Section 8........................  Requires that excess flow valve (EFV) rules consider not    A final rule on excess flow valve (EFV) performance         PC&B (fiscal years 1997-99).
                                    just installation, but also maintenance and replacement     standards was adopted in Docket No. PS-118 (61 FR 31449;
                                    costs; provides authority to adopt industry standards for   June 20, 1996); revised industry standards will likely be
                                    EFV performance.                                            adopted as they are developed. In addition, RSPA received
                                                                                                comments in response to an NPRM in Docket No. PS-118A
                                                                                                (EFV Customer Notification) (61 FR 33476; June 27, 1996)
                                                                                                and published a final rule (63 FR 5464) requiring natural
                                                                                                gas distribution companies to notify customers of the
                                                                                                availability of EFV's for installation in gas service
                                                                                                lines, with the cost of installation to be borne by the
                                                                                                customer.
Section 9........................  Drops requirement to take action to promote the adoption    RSPA has already taken action to require notification of    PC&B (fiscal years 1996 & 1997).
                                    of measures to improve the safety of customer-owned         customers owning their own service lines.
                                    service lines.
Section 10.......................  Advisory committees are the peer review committees for      RSPA will submit risk assessments and cost/benefit          Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
                                    risk assessment and cost/benefit analyses.                  analyses to the advisory committee(s) as required.          (fiscal year 1999).
                                                                                                                                                           Operations.
Section 10.......................  Requires the membership of each advisory committee to be    Advisory committee appointments will be designed to         Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
                                    one-third industry, one-third public, and one-third         maintain the broadest possible representation consistent    (fiscal year 1999).
                                    government; requires at least one of the public and one     with the required composition.                             Operations/Travel (fiscal years 1998
                                    of the industry members to have risk assessment and/or                                                                  & 1999).
                                    cost/benefit analysis background.
Section 10.......................  Advisory committees can meet up to four times a year......  RSPA will maintain twice a year meetings and keep advisory  Operations/Travel (fiscal years 1998
                                                                                                committees informed between meetings through newsletters,   & 1999).
                                                                                                mailings, and informal working groups. Additional
                                                                                                meetings of the advisory committees will be held as
                                                                                                necessary.
Section 12.......................  Establishes `cooperative agreement authority'.............  RSPA requested and will use this authority to expand        R&D (fiscal years 1998 & 1999).
                                                                                                cooperation with industry, the states, and others in the
                                                                                                advancement of pipeline safety.
Section 15.......................  Requires that RSPA issue an annual report biennially,       RSPA will publish the first biennial report (1995-1996) by  PC&B, Administration Expenses (fiscal
                                    beginning August 15, 1997.                                  August 1998.                                                year 1998).
Section 16.......................  Requires OPS to make available Transportation Research      TRB Special Report 219 is being made available to           Administration Expenses (fiscal year
                                    Board (TRB) Special Report 219 to appropriate official(s)   appropriate officials in all states. A public workshop on   1999).
                                    in each state; requires an evaluation of the                population encroachment will be held. Feedback from the
                                    recommendations in the report, especially to what extent    states will assist in RSPA's evaluation of population
                                    they are being implemented, ways to improve                 encroachment issues. A report on RSPA's evaluation of
                                    implementation, and other initiatives to further            population encroachment issues will be completed in late
                                    awareness of local planning and zoning entities regarding   1998.
                                    population encroachment on pipeline rights-of-way.
Section 17.......................  Report to Congress by October 12, 1997, on user fee         A draft report was presented to the pipeline safety         Administration Expenses (fiscal year
                                    assessment measures, bases, and appropriateness; consider   advisory committees in May 1997. Advisory committee         1999).
                                    wide range of assessment factors and comments from public.  comments and comments by the general public were           PC&B.
                                                                                                carefully considered in preparing a final report for
                                                                                                submission to Congress.
Section 19.......................  Establishes specific authority to engage in promotional     RSPA's Damage Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT) has   National Public Education Campaign
                                    activities relating to the underground damage prevention.   evaluated existing public education materials to            (fiscal years 1997-99).
                                                                                                determine their effectiveness in reaching excavators,
                                                                                                operators, the public, and local communities. A national
                                                                                                survey of these groups was completed in 1997. DAMQAT will
                                                                                                conduct a pilot campaign in Virginia, Tennessee, and
                                                                                                Georgia in mid-1998 before launching a national campaign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How does your fiscal year 1999 budget reflect some of the 
initiatives in the Senate one-call bill? What could be done in fiscal 
year 1999 to expedite implementation of some of the objectives of this 
bill?
    Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget provides grants to states for 
enhanced public education, excavator training and enforcement. All of 
these are damage prevention activities as indicated in the one-call 
bill. The best way to expedite implementation of the objectives of this 
bill is for Congress to enact this legislation which establishes a 
program to motivate states to improve their one-call notification 
systems and damage prevention activities.
                               user fees
    Question. Please prepare a comparative historical table displaying 
the per mile user fee assessed to gas transmission and liquid pipeline 
operators, and the total collected in user fees from each industry in 
fiscal years 1995 through 1998 and anticipated for fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. A table follows which shows the per mile rate and the total 
collections for fiscal years 1995 through 1998. We are in the process 
of collecting for fiscal year 1998 now, so the amount shown is what we 
assessed from gas and liquid operators. We estimated the fiscal year 
1998 figures based on the amount of $29,487,517.84. This includes the 
President's Budget Request for the Pipeline Safety Program of 
$32,765,000, less funds derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
$3,300,000 and $1.1 million derived from existing user fees, plus an 
offset to the Research and Special Programs Appropriation for labor 
costs to support the Pipeline Safety Program. Other variables include 
the offset from previous year collections, the allowance by law to 
collect 105 percent of the appropriation, and pipeline mileage, are 
subject to change prior to the December 1998 assessment date.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Per mile
               Fiscal year                     rate      Total collected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Transmission:
    1995.................................       $95.57       $27,830,000
    1996.................................        77.49        22,475,000
    1997.................................        67.46        18,927,423
    1998.................................        67.98    \1\ 19,835,635
    1999 \1\.............................        78.12    \2\ 22,793,000
Liquid:
    1995.................................        47.03         7,215,000
    1996.................................        49.67         7,683,000
    1997.................................        61.27         8,869,716
    1998.................................        59.59     \1\ 9,269,383
    1999.................................        67.78    \2\ 10,543,599
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1998 based on assessment.
\2\ Fiscal year 1999 anticipated assessment.

    Question. Please describe the billing cycle for industry user fees. 
What procedural changes are being considered? What is industry's 
reaction to these proposals.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997 and 1998, we assessed user fees in mid-
December (the first quarter of our fiscal year). This time frame was 
selected in response to discussions with our customers about their 
fiscal management concerns. Since Treasury regulations require payments 
within 30 days, and since the industry's fiscal year is not concurrent 
with the Federal fiscal year, issuing the assessments in mid-December 
gave our customers the flexibility to either pay at the end and/or 
beginning of its fiscal year. We have had a favorable response from 
industry and have no immediate plans to change the billing cycle.
    Question. How did you allocate the user fee between gas 
transmission lines and product lines for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal 
year 1998? Does this accurately reflect the true allocation of your 
efforts and resources? Please document your answer.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, gas operators 
paid 55 percent of program costs and 87 percent of grants. Liquid 
operators paid 45 percent of program costs and 13 percent grants. These 
percentages closely reflect the allocation of our efforts and resources 
as shown in the table that follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year 1997  Fiscal year 1998
          Program activity           -----------------------------------
                                        Gas     Liquid    Gas     Liquid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B \1\ for the Inspectors                50       50       50       50
 (Regions)..........................
PC&B for HQ personnel...............       67       33       60       40
Administration......................       50       50       50       50
Information and Analysis............       50       50       50       50
Risk Assess & Technical Studies.....       50       50       50       50
Compliance..........................       50       50       50       50
Training & Info. Dissemination......       75       25       75       25
Emergency Response (NRC)............       50       50       50       50
Public Education Campaign (One-call)       50       50       50       50
Research & Development..............       50       50       50       50
Average.............................       54       47       54       47
Actual apportionment................       55       45       55       45
Grants..............................       87       13       87       13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Personnel, Compensation & Benefits

    Question. It is the Committee's understanding that the pipeline 
user fee charged liquid and natural gas pipelines for fiscal year 1998 
was $29,487,000. This includes the appropriated amount of $28,000,000; 
an additional charge of $574,000 for RSPA staff oversight of OPS, a 
charge of 3 percent of the total budget collected in recognition that 
not all fees will be collected; and an additional charge for fees not 
collected in fiscal year 1997. Is this understanding correct? Can you 
supply the records of charges to pipelines for the last five years 
including the appropriated user fee, the RSPA charge and break down any 
additional charges mentioned above?
    Answer. Yes, the way RSPA determined the fiscal year 1998 fees is 
consistent with your statement. For years in which we collected the 
appropriation plus the 2-3 percent, the operators are credited the 
following assessment year. Attached are the records from fiscal year 
1994 to present which indicate how RSPA calculated user fees.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.014

    Question. Why does the agency assess user fee charges in addition 
to the appropriated (and authorized) user fee level? Why does RSPA 
charge for staff oversight of OPS, but not other programs funded by 
user fees? Did the assessed user fees for fiscal year 1998 include a 
charge for fees that were not collected last year? How can this charge 
be justified if pipelines are already charged 3 percent for uncollected 
money? Don't both these charges penalize those who pay? What happens to 
those who don't pay?
    Answer. The Pipeline Safety Program is required by law to assess 
certain pipeline operators an amount equal to the amount appropriated 
by Congress for the Pipeline Safety Program and the amount transferred 
to the Research and Special Programs (RSPA) appropriation, as stated in 
the RSPA appropriation language, for legal support and administrative 
oversight of the Pipeline Safety program. OPS is also authorized by law 
to collect up to five percent more than the appropriation in an attempt 
to facilitate collection of the full appropriation during that same 
collection year. Since OPS has experienced that not all operators 
assessed are able to pay, we include an amount of only three percent 
more than the appropriation to cover uncollected assessments during the 
year.
    Companies that are not able to pay their fees are indirectly 
subsidized by those who pay. Some operators are unable to pay the 
assessment because of circumstances other than bankruptcies (for 
example: erroneous reporting of the number of miles of pipelines or 
classification of the pipelines; duplicate reporting of mileage; sale/
purchase of pipelines; and/or abandonment of pipelines). OPS makes 
every available effort to ensure collections from all companies 
assessed, and we mail three delinquency notices to companies before 
turning the accounts over the Department of Treasury for collection. 
All available legal remedies are pursued to collect assessments.
    The annual fee assessment also includes an amount for assessments 
unable to be collected during last year's collection period. Any 
collections above the amount of the appropriation, including 
collections from prior years' assessments, go into the fund and are 
credited to operators' assessment the following collection year. Within 
an average of two to three years, operators provide for only the OPS 
appropriation, OPS rent, and legal/administrative support from the RSPA 
appropriation.
    RSPA's only other special fund, which also collects fees from 
industry, is the Emergency Preparedness Fund (EP Fund). The Emergency 
Preparedness Grants program receives its funding through an 
authorization that also appropriates funding from the EP Fund, 
permanently. The Emergency Preparedness Grants program is implemented 
exclusively by the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), which 
receives most of its funding from the RSPA appropriation. OHMS also 
receives funding from the EP Fund to provide administrative resources 
for the implementation of the Emergency Preparedness Grants Program. 
Therefore, the fees from the Emergency Preparedness Fund pay for 
operating costs (labor and administrative expenses), through permanent 
appropriations language in the authorization, which would be provided 
otherwise by the RSPA appropriation. That transfer is invisible to all 
who are unfamiliar with the authorization language and is not addressed 
in the appropriations process. There is no other way to implement the 
program, since the appropriation is not authorized to have its own FTE 
or positions.
    Similarly, Pipeline Safety would not be able to function without 
the legal support and other administrative functions provided by RSPA.
                          pipeline safety fund
    Question. What is the current balance in the pipeline safety 
reserve fund? Please provide a historical table displaying the annual 
unappropriated balance in the fund from the end of fiscal year 1988 
through 1998, with an estimated level for 1999. Please describe how 
much of the unappropriated balance could safely be drawn down.
    Answer. The following table shows funds entering and leaving the 
Pipeline Safety Fund from October 1, 1997 through March 30, 1998.

                   Pipeline Safety Fund (PSF) Balance

                          [Dollars in millions]

Starting Balance--Oct. 1, 1997.................................... $17.4
Partial amount warranted out for program costs--Mar. 30, 1998..... -17.6
Collections through Mar. 30, 1998.................................  28.5
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Remaining Balance--Mar. 30, 1998............................  28.3

    An additional $13.2 million will be warranted (removed) from the 
PSF within the third quarter to provide the full appropriated amount. 
Also, additional collections and adjustments to collections 
(overpayments/under payments) will impact the balance through September 
30, 1998.
    At the beginning of each fiscal year, OPS needs a balance in the 
fund of at least $11 million to sustain operations until fees can be 
collected to replenish the fund. Because appropriations were passed 
early in fiscal year 1998, fee assessments were able to be sent out 
much earlier in the fiscal year than usual--December 1997. Fortunately, 
OPS was able to bill the fee assessments early in fiscal year 1998. 
Since the fee assessments are based on the level of appropriations, it 
would be too risky to assume that we would receive appropriations in 
October each year, as we did in fiscal year 1998.
    As of the end of fiscal year 1999, the amount held in the fund in 
excess of the $11 million needed to sustain OPS operations is projected 
to be about $5 million. This $5 million is far less than the general 
fund appropriations that this program had to rely upon in 1986 and 1987 
while the pipeline safety fees were disputed in court. Therefore, we 
consider the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 estimated reserve 
fund level of $15.9 million to be justified by both operational needs 
($11 million reserve needed to sustain operations) and as a partial 
``reimbursement,'' in effect, to the General Fund.
    The following table provides the annual unappropriated PSF balances 
from the end of fiscal years 1988 through 1997, with an estimated level 
provided for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

                                                          Unappropriated
        Fiscal year                                          balance \1\
1988....................................................     $17,179,509
1989....................................................      17,672,184
1990....................................................      17,982,653
1991....................................................      17,469,218
1992....................................................      17,694,592
1993....................................................      16,971,943
1994....................................................      18,684,690
1995....................................................      18,485,209
1996....................................................      20,291,839
1997....................................................      17,353,940
1998 (estimate).........................................      15,888,940
1999 (estimate).........................................      15,888,940

\1\ End of fiscal year.

    Question. Please recalculate your answer from last year regarding 
the minimum dollar amount that should be retained in the pipeline 
safety fund balance in order to maintain the integrity of the pipeline 
safety program. What is the justification for the recalculated amount?
    Answer. The minimum dollar amount needed is approximately $11 
million. However, for the reasons cited previously, we conclude that 
the estimated balance at the end of fiscal year 1999 of approximately 
$15-16 million is a more appropriate level.
 oil pollution act environmental program costs and other environmental 
                                matters
    Question. Please allocate and describe all OPS actual expenses that 
legally could be associated with Oil pollution Act (OPA) requirements 
in fiscal year 1998, and anticipated in fiscal year 1999. How does this 
compare in each fiscal year with the amount derived from the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund?
    Answer. The cost allocation and description of activities of 
expenses we can estimate that could be associated with OPA are:

Positions & FTE.--FTE address environmental policy, regulatory 
    development, spill response plan review & exercise, 
    pipeline inspection & spill response technical monitoring; 
    special task force/studies of oil pipeline company risk 
    management programs & operations..........................  $500,000
Data Analysis.--Over half the incident reporting, data 
    collection, analysis & trending labor; and identifying 
    accident cause & consequence, evaluating & acting on 
    environmental impacts, particularly related to protecting 
    drinking water sources....................................   500,000
Compliance & Spill Response Monitoring.--Technical field 
    engineering support for monitoring major spills & 
    remediation; and dedicated personnel for integrating 
    public & private sector OPA response activities, 
    communications coordination & decision support for 
    protective actions........................................   150,000
National Pipeline Mapping Systems Operations & Maintenance.--
    Collecting & digitizing more accurate liquid pipeline 
    location information as it becomes available; and to be 
    used in conjunction with data on population, drinking 
    water intakes, terrain. Needed to set priorities for 
    prevention & response actions.............................   400,000
Environmental Index.--Work with state agencies to identify & 
    categorize information on unusually sensitive 
    environmental areas. Establish central repository in each 
    state to be focal point for exchange of data..............   250,000
State Grants for Hazardous Liquid Programs.--Fund 13 states 
    oversight of intrastate pipelines operations & 
    maintenance, construction, repairs........................ 1,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 3,300,000

    Allocations for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are provided 
on the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year--
                   OPA                   -------------------------------
                                           1998 enacted    1999 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B....................................        $214,000        $187,000
Administrative Expenses.................          45,000          45,000
Program.................................         713,000         625,000
Implementing OPA........................       2,328,000       2,443,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       3,300,000       3,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What new challenges were faced in the implementation of 
OPA? In each fiscal year since the enactment of the OPA, what was the 
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund level requested by RSPA prior to the OMB 
passback?
    Answer. There are numerous ongoing challenges in responding to the 
requirements of OPA. Our goal has been and continues to be integrating 
pipeline operator capabilities with the entire response community and 
being consistent with national standards for evaluating preparedness. 
We assumed new roles in interagency coordination with the National 
Response Team and the other federal and state agencies with regulatory 
responsibilities in response planning. We maintain those relationships 
today and will in the future. The agencies worked together to provide 
guidance to operators on what comprises environmentally sensitive areas 
and to develop a more efficient ``one plan'' approach to all federal 
response planning.
    In taking on the OPA program, OPS determined what requirements 
would be appropriate for onshore pipeline spill response planning, 
develop a regulation and establish a plan review process. Since the 
program inception, we have been reviewing and approving plans and 
operating a program to test the plans though drill and exercises, in 
conjunction with the other agencies. We still work to assure a uniform 
approach, minimize burden on industry and ensure conformity with the 
National Contingency Plan and Area Contingency Plans. Other pipeline-
specific challenges include understanding the large geographic areas 
traversed, location of water intakes, operating conditions and pipeline 
spill history. We have built a systematic approach to assure that our 
plan review and exercise process appropriately considers risk of 
pollution, operators' capabilities to respond, and needs for planning 
improvements.
    Looking to the future, we hope to use our improving analytical 
capabilities to more fully consider risk-based factors. We are 
considering taking a system wide look at environmental protection 
throughout companies. We seek opportunities to better understand how 
management systems can be used to improve monitoring of pipeline 
conditions, systems and facilities to reduce risk to the environment.
    The table below depicts RSPA's requests prior to the OMB passback. 
Historically, the funding derived from the OSLTF included funds for 
operational expenses--PC&B, travel, equipment, training, and printing 
as well as funds which support table-top exercises and response plan 
review, and the 1999 request to Congress continues to follow this 
historical practice.

                          Request Level to OMB

Fiscal year:
    1994......................................................$2,425,000
    1995...................................................... 2,465,000
    1996...................................................... 2,698,000
    1997...................................................... 1,912,000
    1998...................................................... 2,528,000
    1999...................................................... 7,422,000

    Question. Please describe progress made in the environmental 
indexing effort. What was accomplished with funding provided in fiscal 
year 1997? How much is being spent in 1998 for this activity, and for 
what purpose? What will be done during fiscal year 1999 and how much 
will this cost? When will this activity be completed?
    Answer. The environmental indexing effort is well under way. RSPA 
has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as 
mandated by statute, and the Departments of Interior (DOI), Agriculture 
(USDA), and Commerce (DOC), environmental organizations, technical 
experts, and the pipeline industry to identify and locate resources 
that are most susceptible to a hazardous liquid release, or for which 
consequences would be most adverse if affected by a release. This 
includes drinking water, ecological, and cultural resources.
    RSPA has used the funding provided in 1997 to create a draft 
Drinking Water Data Catalog. The data catalog covers each of the fifty 
states and includes data on groundwater wells, surface water intakes, 
aquifers, sole source aquifers, wellhead protection areas, and geology. 
For each of these categories, the catalog includes the name of the 
government agency that has created the data, a description of the data, 
noted problems with the data, and a ranking of the quality and 
completeness of the data for creating an electronic data layer of 
unusually sensitive drinking water resources. The catalog also includes 
the methodology for generating data on unusually sensitive drinking 
water resources, a flowchart for gathering the data and creating the 
drinking water resources data layer, and maps showing the quality of 
the different data layers for all of the states. Finally, the catalog 
ranks each of the fifty states for drinking water data quality and 
completeness. The EPA Groundwater and Drinking Water Protection 
Division reviewed the catalog for completeness and accuracy, 
recommended only minor corrections, and determined it was a useful data 
tool that could assist EPA staff. EPA has requested and has been 
granted permission to provide the catalog to the EPA headquarter and 
regional staff in the Groundwater and Drinking Water Protection 
Division and the Oil Spill Division.
    RSPA also used the funding provided in 1997 to begin gathering 
drinking water data ``layers'' for digital information display and has 
created a map of unusually sensitive drinking water resources for a few 
of the states. RSPA has also used the 1997 funding to research the 
information and digital data that is available on sensitive ecological 
and cultural resources. RSPA has located information and digital data 
layers on threatened and endangered species, species that are at risk 
of global extinction, and areas where a large percentage of the world's 
migratory birds congregate. RSPA has also located information and 
digital data layers on national historic sites, archaeological sites, 
national monuments and landmarks, and other cultural resource.
    RSPA expects to spend $500,000 on this initiative in fiscal year 
1998. This money will be used to continue to gather digital data on 
drinking water resources, threatened and endangered species, species at 
risk of global extinction, areas where a large percentage of the 
world's migratory birds congregate, and national cultural resources. 
This data will be used to determine the locations of the unusually 
sensitive drinking water, ecological, and cultural resources, and to 
create maps of these unusually sensitive areas that can be provided to 
the pipeline industry, other government agencies, and the public for 
better protection of these resources. The funding will also be used to 
work with the state agencies responsible for creating data on the 
resources to verify that the final maps of the proposed unusually 
sensitive areas truly depict the most unusually sensitive drinking 
water, ecological, and cultural resources.
    All of the drinking water resource data are created and maintained 
by state government agencies. Because the data are not created and 
maintained by a single government agency, the data varies in format, 
completeness, and accuracy. Extra work is therefore required to collect 
the data and to put it into a common format.
    All of the location data on threatened and endangered species and 
species at risk of global extinction are also created and maintained at 
the state level by State Heritage Programs or State Nature 
Conservancies. This data is private information and, therefore, 
agreements must be established with each agency in order for RSPA to 
access the data. RSPA is working with EPA and several other agencies 
and environmental organizations and co-funding an initiative to 
standardize this state data, convert the paper data on the sensitive 
resources to digital data, gather the digital data into a common 
national database, and make the data available to the public and other 
government agencies at various mapping scales. RSPA is also working on 
this initiative with the Departments of Interior, Commerce, 
Agriculture, Defense, and Army; The Nature Conservancy; the State 
Heritage Programs; and the Association for Biodiversity Information. 
RSPA anticipates standardization and digitizing of the state data will 
be completed in 1999, and a national data layer will be available at a 
county scale in the year 2000. A more detailed and accurate data layer 
is expected by the end of the year 2000. This database will provide the 
information necessary to locate unusually sensitive ecological 
resources upon completion of the definition.
    RSPA expects to spend $500,000 on this initiative in fiscal year 
1999, if the funding for this project is approved. RSPA will use the 
requested funds to complete most of the work on drinking water 
resources, the standardization and digitizing of state ecological data, 
and the creation of unusually sensitive cultural resource maps. RSPA 
expects the environmental index initiative will be completed in the 
year 2000 when the more detailed and accurate data layer on threatened 
and endangered species and species at risk of global extinction is 
completed. All of the data that is created by RSPA will be available to 
other Federal, state, and local government agencies, the pipeline 
industry, private groups, and the public to better protect these 
sensitive resources through increased prevention and response measures, 
enhanced emergency response planning, and an increased awareness of the 
location and character/status of these sensitive resources.
    Question. Please provide the Committee with the results of last 
year's review of the pipeline operators' emergency response plans. 
Include the number of plans reviewed, the number accepted, and the 
number of plans which required corrective measures. How do you ensure 
that your suggestions are incorporated into the plans? What are your 
performance measures or goals for this effort?
    Answer.

      NUMBER OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS AND REVISIONS \1\ REVIEWED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 10/01/96-    10/01/97-
                                                  09/30/97     03/31/98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Plans Reviewed............................           53           23
New Plans Requiring Revisions after Initial              49           20
 Review.......................................
New Plans Approved............................           20            3
Existing Plan Revisions Reviewed..............          306          164
Existing Plan Revisions Accepted..............          306          164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For operators posing a risk of significant and substantial harm to
  the environment.

    RSPA works closely with operators as we work to revise plans to 
improve response capability. Before approving a plan, or revisions to a 
plan, RSPA reviews any changes to ensure that the operator has 
adequately addressed our review comments. We also take a sample of 
existing plans and verify that the emergency response data is accurate. 
We conduct table top exercises and area emergency drills to test the 
effectiveness of the planning. During emergency response exercises, 
RSPA verifies that operators have incorporated our suggestions in their 
response plan or have taken other appropriate precautions.
    Our primary goal for the Oil Pollution Program in the future is to 
make it more risk-based. Our emergency response plan review process 
will focus on the operator's management systems: how they manage their 
people, their equipment, their response contractors, and other 
resources.
    We are discussing with the American Petroleum Institute, new 
initiatives to determine the impact of planning and prevention 
initiatives, cooperative government/industry training, and system-wide 
audits of environmental protection programs.
    Question. Please discuss the amount of funds spent on spill 
response exercises during each of the last three years. How much do you 
expect to spend during fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. We continue to review operator response plans by overseeing 
field and table top exercises to strengthen operator readiness to 
respond to spills from pipelines. We use our plan review, analysis of 
incident data, projections of areas at high risk from natural 
disasters, and findings from accident investigations to target 
geographic areas where exercises are likely to benefit operators and 
the response community. Separate contractor costs include: data 
analysis; modeling; investigation and follow-up of incidents; 
development of scenarios; planning, conducting and evaluating 
exercises; and training programs on spill response to familiarize OPS 
inspectors with the OPA program.
    Additionally, operational costs are expended for OPS staff to 
travel to exercises sites and to training. Inspectors need to be able 
to fully participate in exercises to evaluate response plans 
effectively, and to respond to actual incidents. Since fiscal year 1996 
we have spent about $1.5-$2 million dollars annually on this broad 
range of activities which contribute to exercises and other related 
program efforts which also benefits from the same analysis. We estimate 
that the same amount will be spent in fiscal year 1999.
    Question. You state: ``Experience in actual incidents has 
demonstrated the OPA Program is having very positive results.'' Please 
document and further explain this assertion.
    Answer. Our efforts under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 are 
directed at improving pipeline operators' abilities to protect the 
environment from spills. Our response plans program and the exercises 
we conduct have helped operators to respond more effectively to 
pipeline releases. Although there have not been any catastrophic spills 
over the last year, there have been several incidents which have 
required operators to implement their response plans. In each case, the 
operators' response efforts demonstrated the value of having developed 
spill plans and having effective planning programs.
    In June of 1996, Colonial Pipeline had a major spill in 
Simpsonville, South Carolina. The magnitude of the spill required the 
operator to call in response contractors from all over the southeast 
region of the U.S. Because the company already identified the resources 
in their facility response plan, they were able to rapidly bring in the 
equipment they needed.
    When Williams Pipeline discovered in March of 1997 that it had a 
leak at a tank farm near Des Moines, Iowa, the company implemented its 
response plan and immediately began to secure the source of the release 
and to recover the product that had been lost.
    Colonial Pipeline had a spill in a landfill near Atlanta, Georgia, 
in March of 1998. Even though the product was contained in the 
immediate area around the leak site, the company implemented its 
response plan and took precautionary action to ensure that the product 
did not migrate into a nearby river. In all three cases, the pipeline 
operators were able to take immediate action to protect the environment 
because they had developed their facility response plans in advance.
                           operating expenses
    Question. Please indicate the exact amounts appropriated for travel 
and transportation in the last three years, and indicate the amount 
requested for fiscal year 1999.
    Answer.

                        Travel and transportation

Fiscal year:
    1996 enacted..............................................  $499,000
    1997 enacted..............................................   839,000
    1998 enacted.............................................. 1,003,000
    1999 request..............................................   978,000

    Question. For fiscal year 1996, 1997, 1998 and budgeted for fiscal 
year 1999, please prepare separate expense charts for resources 
obligated on overtime, bonuses, travel, non-mandatory bonuses, 
permanent change of station, and communications.
    Answer. The following table is provided.

                                             OBLIGATIONS BY CATEGORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            1998         1999
                                                              1996 actual  1997 actual    estimate     estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overtime \1\................................................       $4,191       $8,895       $4,200       $4,200
Bonuses \1\.................................................       36,400       45,100       42,000       40,400
Travel \2\..................................................      820,000    1,167,000    1,231,000      978,000
Permanent change of station.................................       25,210       21,615       57,050       50,000
Communications..............................................      427,000      468,000      470,000      470,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RSPA budget requests do not include funding for bonuses (special act and on the spot cash awards)and
  overtime. If available, funding from unoccupied positions is used within a modest internal administrative
  limit. All bonuses given were non-mandatory.
\2\ Fiscal year 1998 includes $300,000 for operating expenses carried over (3-year funding) from prior years.

    Question. How many staff personnel does OPS have in the Anchorage 
Joint Pipeline Office? How have their responsibilities or activities 
changed since last year?
    Answer. OPS has three inspectors in Alaska. One person is assigned 
full time to monitoring the Alyeska Pipeline and represents OPS in the 
Joint Pipeline Office. The second person is tasked with monitoring all 
other pipelines in Alaska. The third person, a junior inspector, 
assists the other two inspectors as needed. The responsibilities of 
these inspectors have not changed since last year.
    Question. Please update us on the implementation of the Alyeska 
memorandum of agreement regarding valves and corrosion. Are there any 
new issues in this area?
    Answer. The corrosion program was initiated in November of 1992 
based on a ``Memorandum of Agreement for a Task Force on Oversight of 
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)'', executed by the State of 
Alaska, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Department of 
Transportation on November 21, 1990. On February 12, 1998, Alyeska 
Pipeline Service Company issued its final report titled, 1997 TAPS 
mainline Cathodic Protection Coupon Monitoring Program, Final Report. 
Results of the study confirm coupons represent the best available 
technology for monitoring the cathodic protection (CP) system on TAPS.
    Traditional cathodic protection evaluation methods, such as annual 
voltage readings, are not effective because of the unusual 
environmental conditions TAPS crosses. To address these issues, TAPS 
developed an extensive corrosion coupon program, whereby coupons are 
placed at 1 mile intervals on the pipeline. The coupons are metallic 
representatives of the pipeline and are subject to the same 
environmental and cathodic protection conditions as the pipeline. They 
are periodically checked for adequate cathodic protection and analyzed 
for corrosion. If corrosion is not found on the coupon, it is theorized 
corrosion is not present on the pipeline.
    However, environmental conditions (wet/dry conditions), zinc 
proximity, and coating defect distribution and geometry precludes using 
coupons as a stand alone method to monitor the effectiveness of CP on 
TAPS. Where conditions warrant, CP coupons will be used in conjunction 
with other sound engineering practices, such as internal inspection 
tools, telluric current nulled close interval surveys, and local 
knowledge of environmental conditions. Alyeska plans to install 
additional coupons on TAPS in 1998. Alyeska has installed additional 
impressed current cathodic protection covering approximately 125 miles 
of the total 380 miles of underground pipe on TAPS and plans to install 
another 125 miles of protection in 1999.
    RSPA/OPS is overseeing all facets of the corrosion program and has 
agreed to the utilization of coupons to monitor the cathodic protection 
as long as this use is combined with a close interval survey and an 
annual internal inspection.
    In January of 1997, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company and the 
Joint Pipeline Office entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding 
assessment of valves on the TAPS. During 1997, Alyeska conducted a risk 
assessment on mainline valves in order to prioritize mainline valves 
for testing, and to establish performance standards for internal leak 
through.
    Alyeska identified and tested valves with the highest testing 
priority, i.e. those most critical to the overall system safety, 
including leak-through tests on 44 mainline valves and secondary 
sealing tests on a Remote Gate Valve. During 1998, Alyeska will conduct 
leak-through tests on an additional 44 mainline valves and will perform 
additional secondary sealing tests using ``Gel Block,'' a method 
whereby the sealant is pumped into the valve cavity and forms a seal.
    Alyeska has presented their mainline valve maintenance, testing and 
repair program to RSPA/OPS. This program addresses precautionary 
measures for valves of unknown condition, performance criteria for 
evaluation of in-service valves and means of determining their overall 
risk factors. RSPA/OPS continues to closely monitor the mainline valve 
evaluation progress.
                          information systems
    Question. Please prepare a table showing the amount of funding used 
and the amount actually appropriated to improve your information 
systems during each of the last three years.
    Answer. Please see tables that follow:

            Pipeline safety information systems expenditures

                                  1996

        Budget item                                              Funding
Upgrade regions to Wide Area network..........................  $160,000
Equipment costs: desktop and notebook computers to meet 
    expanding staff needs.....................................   110,000
Contractor support for Hazardous Materials Information Systems   340,000
VAX maintenance costs.........................................   150,000
Site licenses costs for software..............................    40,000
Data Baseline Project: Establish performance measures, support 
    risk-based planning, G.P.R.A., identify outside sources of 
    data......................................................   400,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total 1996 Information Systems and Analysis............. 1,200,000

                                  1997

Hardware/Software for increased staff.........................  $110,000
Contractor support for Hazardous Materials Information Systems   500,000
VAX maintenance costs.........................................   140,000
Site licenses costs for software..............................    45,000
Data Baseline Project: Establish performance measures, support 
    risk-based planning, G.P.R.A., identify outside sources of 
    data......................................................   330,000
Software, hardware, and training support to State pipeline 
    safety programs...........................................    75,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total 1997 Information Systems and Analysis............. 1,200,000

                                  1998

VAX maintenance costs.........................................  $125,000
Contractor support for Hazardous Materials Information Systems   350,000
Site licenses costs for software..............................    65,000
Data Baseline Project: Establish performance measures, support 
    risk-based planning, G.P.R.A., identify outside sources of 
    data......................................................   300,000
Software, hardware, and training support to State pipeline 
    safety programs...........................................    50,000
Wide area network costs.......................................    50,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total 1998 Information Systems and Analysis............. 1,200,000

    Question. What specific improvements have been made in your 
information systems and analytical capabilities since last year?
    Answer. Since last year, OPS has begun using a new vastly improved 
information system for tracking operator inspections and related 
information known as the Integrated Operator Compliance System (IOCS). 
The system uses a wide area network (WAN) also brought online since 
last year, to allow the Regions to access to a Windows NT Oracle based 
central repository in Headquarters. The IOCS System was designed for 
data entry and access on-site during inspections on notebook computers. 
Analytical capabilities continue to be improved with a redesign of our 
antiquated VAX-based data system from a text-based database system 
language (System 1032) which also is being redesigned in Oracle. 
Integration with all operator data bases, including the National 
Pipeline Mapping System, incident, inspection and operator annual 
report data is underway. Since the new system is Windows NT based, it 
integrates easily with other PC-based applications such as Microsoft 
Office products, providing much improved access and distribution of 
data throughout OPS. Additionally, Microsoft Office was provided this 
year for our state pipeline safety office computers so data is easily 
shared between all offices. Our initiative to provide computers in 
state offices has proven to be very successful, greatly improving 
communications and data sharing between state offices, with our 
regional and district offices, and with our Federal offices.
    We are improving the scope, accuracy, and usefulness of our data by 
working with joint Federal/state/industry data teams to review the 
adequacy of currently available data, determine the best way to have 
access to newly needed data, and document existing data in other 
governmental agencies or elsewhere that may be useful. For example, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has much data on pipeline 
ownership and mileage that is of use. We found and obtained a source 
for this data in electronic format. Additionally, DOE's Energy 
Information Administration has useful data that we now understand more 
fully which also is useful for analytical purposes. We are building a 
National Pipeline Mapping System to locate pipelines with reasonable 
accuracy in relation to population, water, environment, jurisdiction 
borders, transportation and topography. We have made our data available 
on our World Wide Web page, reducing the number of FOIA requests we 
receive and making the data more available to the public. The Web page 
provides a useful feedback mechanism allowing public comment on all our 
activities, rulemakings, and easy access to pipeline statistics.
    Additionally, we are working to create a standard for data which 
operators would maintain on site. A comprehensive understanding of 
operations and maintenance history, valve locations, inspection 
findings, pipe manufacture and installation focuses our inspection 
attention on the most important integrity management issues. We are 
working with industry on innovative ways of accessing this kind of 
information without burdensome collection processes.
    Question. What is the empirical basis for the additional $300,000 
for information system operations? Why can't the upgrade to the state 
computer platform be funded within the base?
    Answer. An increase in Information System Operations funding of 
$300,000 is needed to upgrade the computer platform in State pipeline 
safety offices. Existing systems originally purchased in 1995 have 
insufficient speed and capacity to accommodate requirements of today's 
software and hardware standards. Additionally, the equipment is out of 
warranty and maintenance and support costs are increasing rapidly 
because the equipment is old and unreliable. An upgrade of the computer 
platform will assure that systems are capable of meeting date 
requirements relating to the Year 2000 date conversion problem, and 
that the systems will be adequate for meeting software requirements 
beyond the year 2000. Faster computer communications between OPS and 
state offices is needed to assure that states will have the ability to 
access OPS' National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) and the Integrated 
Operator Compliance System (IOCS). Access to these information systems 
will enable states to more effectively find and fix pipeline safety 
problems, more efficiently enforce compliance and target safety risks, 
and enhance state participation in development of new safety 
regulations and standards.
    The upgrade to the state computer platform cannot be funded within 
the base without drastically impacting our current schedule for 
completing the transition of our System 1032 VAX computer data to 
Oracle. This major redesign of our information system from the old 
archaic system to a new Windows NT-based system in Oracle is about 50 
percent complete, with the new inspection data collection phase already 
on-line. Existing accident and incident databases, safety-related 
conditions databases, and operator annual report databases and program 
interfaces must be recorded in the new system in order to have all data 
necessary to run our Pipeline Inspection Prioritization Program (PIPP) 
on schedule. The PIPP process requires access to all operator databases 
and is an essential tool in prioritizing and targeting inspection 
activity.
                          compliance programs
    Question. Please provide fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 
program goals for the risk-based Pipeline Inspection Priority Program 
(PIPP) and specify which regions were unable to meet these goals, and 
please explain why.
    Answer. RSPA/OPS is providing greater public safety and protection 
of the environment by concentrating our inspection resources on the 
areas of greatest risk. We continually improve our risk-based 
compliance and inspection policies to emphasize pipeline integrity 
management and incorporate lessons we have learned from previous 
inspection cycles. RSPA/OPS uses the Pipeline Inspection Priority 
Program (PIPP) as a tool to prioritize routine inspections 
supplementing our identification of non-routine safety inspection focus 
areas.
    For example, an unprecedented amount of new pipeline construction 
is being proposed for fiscal year 1998. The majority of these projects 
involve building pipelines to bring Canadian natural gas and crude oil 
to the midwestern and eastern part of the United States. RSPA/OPS plans 
intensive oversight of these construction projects to assure proper 
construction practices.
    We continue to assess the outcomes of the risk management and the 
system integrity pilot programs to determine if and when expansion of 
these programs is feasible. RSPA/OPS is considering moving from a fixed 
interval inspection unit basis to a more variable inspection basis, 
based on performance. Additionally, we are performing more inter-
regional inspections that provide OPS a comprehensive review of 
operator procedures and allow more time for performing independent 
field verifications and evaluating possible problem areas. RSPA/OPS is 
exploring the possibility of allowing conditional self-assessment for 
operators with strong quality assurance programs accompanied by 
excellent safety records. This will allow us to focus on pipeline 
systems needing improvement.
    Those regions that were unable to meet the standard inspection 
goals are as follows:
    Eastern Region: The Eastern Region was unable to meet its 1997 
standard inspection goals due to the loss of three trained inspectors. 
The new employees hired to fill the vacant inspector slots required 
training to perform the planned inspections.
    Western Region: The training and mentoring of five new inspectors 
in addition to the continuing long-term illness of another inspector 
prevented the Western Region from meeting its 1997 standard inspection 
goals.
    Question. Please bring us up to date on the enforcement activities 
of OPS. For each of the last three fiscal years, please provide data on 
all enforcement actions taken by OPS, including the number of 
enforcement cases opened, closed, and the amount of civil penalty 
assessments collected. Please compare these data with the number of 
reportable events, number of deaths and injuries, and any other 
measures of pipeline safety for both hazardous liquids and gases.
    Answer. The following table is provided:

                                                   ENFORCEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Calendar year--
                            Measures                             -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       1995            1996            1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Opened....................................................             132             185             179
Cases Closed....................................................             107             167             186
Civil Penalty Assessment \1\....................................        $264,835         $46,750        $228,171
 
                                                REPORTABLE EVENTS
 
Incidents Reported..............................................             350             374             362
Deaths..........................................................              19              20              11
Injuries........................................................              64              85              93
Property Damage.................................................     $54,000,000     $64,000,000     $65,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The method of determining this number has been changed from previous years.

    Question. What non-regulatory approaches to improve ``pipeline 
integrity'' are you exploring? How has the fiscal year 1998 program 
been improved compared with the fiscal year 1997 effort?
    Answer. RSPA/OPS continues to focus on improvements to pipeline 
integrity which will assure greater levels of safety, environmental 
protection, and service reliability. In fiscal year 1998, we will 
implement a three to five year, voluntary System Integrity Inspection 
(SII) pilot program designed to test whether a more broad-based 
examination of a company's safety and pipeline integrity programs will 
result in improved performance and a more effective use of inspection 
resources. Up to five candidates will be selected who offer the best 
opportunity to test the SII pilot program under a broad range of 
conditions. Inspectors will work cooperatively with each company to 
address the most significant pipeline system integrity issues, 
addressing areas that go beyond the regulations to assure improved 
protection. The SII is intended to result in improved communication and 
information sharing between operators and government, and focus 
resources on the most important risks to pipeline safety.
    Question. During fiscal year 1997, how many companies were 
inspected that did not have enforcement actions taken against them? How 
many were provided technical education on how to come into compliance 
with the regulations, when enforcement action could have been taken?
    Answer. RSPA/OPS inspected 186 companies (746 pipeline units) 
during fiscal year 1997. Of those, 116 companies (465 pipeline units) 
did not receive enforcement actions. Many companies were inspected at 
several different locations throughout their system. During every 
inspection, pipeline companies are advised of methods to improve 
compliance with the Federal pipeline safety requirements and industry 
practices. The issues discussed usually involve minor items not 
warranting enforcement action, such as a single missing pipeline marker 
or performance less than industry best practice policies. No official 
record is maintained of the items verbally relayed to the company 
because they are not substantive violations.
    For issues that are slightly more serious but not deserving of 
civil penalty assessment, RSPA/OPS uses a Letter of Concern or a 
Warning Letter to bring the matter to company management attention. In 
1997, RSPA/OPS issued 110 Letters of Concern and Warning Letters.
    Question. How many of those companies provided with technical 
education were reinspected? Did you find these companies still out of 
compliance? If so, how many enforcement actions were taken against 
those companies?
    Answer. Twenty-four of the companies inspected in fiscal year 1996 
were inspected at different locations in their system during fiscal 
year 1997. Enforcement action was initiated on thirteen of the 
companies which received Letters of Concern or Warning Letters in 
fiscal year 1996. However, it should be noted that the concerns found 
in fiscal year 1997 were not necessarily the same items found in fiscal 
year 1996.
    Question. Please prepare an updated table indicating the number of 
pipeline safety inspectors on board and the number of pipeline safety 
inspector positions authorized for each of the last three fiscal years. 
Please explain whether the number of authorized positions has or has 
not increased relative to congressional directives. If not, why not?
    Answer. The total number of filled inspector positions varies 
during the year due to personnel turnover and hiring of new inspectors. 
RSPA/OPS is in the process of hiring additional inspectors in the 
Southern and Central Regions.

                                          NUMBER OF INSPECTORS ONBOARD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1998 \1\               1997 \1\               1996 \1\
                   Region                   --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Authorized   Onboard   Authorized   Onboard   Authorized   Onboard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern....................................           8          8           7          5           9          7
Southern...................................           8          7           8          8           8          8
Central....................................          12         11          12         11          11          9
Southwest..................................          11         11          11         11          11          9
Western....................................          13         13          13         13          12          8
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total................................          52         50          51         48          51         49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ These numbers do not include headquarters inspector positions that supply technical support.

    The number of authorized positions is consistent with congressional 
directives allowing for internal promotions and personnel turnover.
    Question. How many accident investigations were conducted during 
each of the last three fiscal years? Please include information on the 
number of follow-up accident investigations and the results.
    Answer.

                         ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1995     1996     1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Investigations.....................       21       64       51
Follow-up Investigations.....................       60       58       65
Accident Reports Generated...................        6        6    \1\ 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional reports are forthcoming.

    Question. Please assess your influence on the safety and compliance 
of those companies not participating in the risk demonstration project.
    Answer. Improving pipeline integrity is critical to enhancing 
safety, environmental protection, and service reliability. RSPA/OPS 
uses a variety of activities to focus on integrity issues. These 
include our inspection program, system integrity inspection pilot 
program and involvement in industry standard-setting organizations. 
Through changes in our compliance activities, we are able to 
demonstrate a willingness to work with industry to create an superior 
safety atmosphere. This willingness is based on mutual respect, a key 
ingredient in promoting a greater exchange of information which leads 
to a safer environment.
    Our compliance program includes different types of inspections 
(i.e. standard, special, follow-up, system-wide, system integrity, 
etc.) and focuses on opportunities to positively impact safety. Each 
inspection contributes to our understanding of pipeline integrity 
issues and increases awareness and attention to regulatory 
requirements. In times of company downsizing and personnel reduction, 
our presence helps ensure maintenance and safety activities are not 
neglected. In most cases, the companies are quick to comply with any 
deficiencies noted. Some operators, now familiar with our requirements 
for corrective and protective measures following certain types of 
accidents, embark immediately on that type of corrective action prior 
to RSPA/OPS requiring the action. However, we are quick to take 
enforcement action if a company will not cooperate and safety is being 
jeopardized.
    RSPA/OPS seeks to provide appropriate levels of oversight based on 
safety performance. Companies with excellent enforcement and safety 
records are given opportunities for self-assessment and less frequent 
inspections. Companies which struggle to comply are receiving increased 
monitoring and attention. Applying risk management internally, RSPA/OPS 
is devoting the greatest resources to the greatest risks.
            research and development and mapping initiative
    Question. Based on the results of the mapping pilot, what do you 
anticipate the voluntary national pipeline mapping system will cost 
federal and state governments and the industry? When do you anticipate 
that the project will be completed?
    Answer. Based on the results of the mapping pilot, OPS anticipates 
that the remaining funds appropriated in 1996, 1997, and 1998, and the 
funds requested in 1999 will allow OPS to complete 70 percent of the 
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). OPS will set up cooperative 
agreements with various state agencies to jointly fund the creation of 
the NPMS. OPS will fund up to 50 percent of the state's cost of 
creating and maintaining the digital pipeline layer for the state in a 
format that meets the national pipeline mapping standards.
    Approximately 15 state agencies have received funding from their 
state or another agency and are currently creating a digital pipeline 
map of their state's pipelines, or they have requested and expect to 
receive state funds to create a digital pipeline map of their state's 
pipelines. The cooperative agreements will allow OPS and these state 
agencies to maximize federal and state resources and minimize 
duplication. Based on discussions with the various state agencies and 
the results of the pilot test, OPS estimates the states will spend 
approximately $800,000--$1,000,000 in state funds to convert the data 
that they currently have in house to a format that meets the national 
pipeline mapping standards, to request data from pipeline and liquefied 
natural gas operators, to digitize the paper maps, to convert the 
electronic data to a common format, and to purchase the hardware and 
software needed to run the system.
    The pilot indicated that an individual pipeline operator's cost to 
submit data that meets the standards is dependent on the format of the 
operator's data. Operators that have collected digital information and 
have stored it in a geographic information system (GIS) indicated that 
they would incur a minimal cost to submit data that meets the 
standards. Operators that have collected digital location data on the 
pipeline but have not incorporated it into a GIS also indicated that 
they would incur minimal cost to submit data that meets the standards. 
Operators that have old maps that do not accurately show the location 
of the pipeline indicated that they would incur a medium to high cost 
to submit data that meets the standards. With the cost of the 
Geographical Positioning System coming down, RSPA expects more 
operators to upgrade the accuracy of data in computers with field 
monitoring activities.
    OPS anticipates 70 percent of the NPMS will be completed by the 
year 2000. OPS anticipates the remaining 30 percent of the system will 
be for segments of the pipeline network where the operator is in the 
process of migrating from a paper system to a digital database, or 
where the operator cannot accurately locate the pipeline and has chosen 
to update their records through field verification. After the year 
2000, OPS will continue to work with pipeline operators and the 
repositories to complete the NPMS, and to upgrade and update data in 
the system as more accurate information becomes available.
    Question. What are the Office of Pipeline Safety expected costs for 
this project over the next ten years?
    Answer. OPS anticipates that the appropriated funds received in 
1996, 1997, and 1998, and the funds requested in 1999 will complete 70 
percent of the system. OPS expects to complete, over the next ten 
years, the remaining 30 percent of the system and to update and 
maintain the system if the level of funding that we are currently 
requesting is sustained.
    Question. What technical advances have resulted from research 
sponsored during the last three fiscal years by the OPS?
    Answer. Technical advances that have resulted from research 
sponsored by OPS during the last three fiscal years include a study on 
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. SCADA systems 
are used to monitor pipeline operations. The SCADA study determines the 
feasibility and costs of requiring pipeline operators to install a leak 
detection system, which would allow for the detection of impediments or 
needed system improvements. Also, a study investigating the 
establishment of leak-before-rupture criteria for gas and hazardous 
liquid pipelines establishes pipeline design and operations conditions 
to limit catastrophic failures. In addition, another report examines 
analytical and experimental research into fatigue behavior of pipelines 
that have mechanical damage, such as dents and gouges, which will help 
pipeline operators decide when to repair pipelines by establishing 
parameters that can be used in determining damage acceptance or 
rejection criteria.
    A future technical study that should result in technical advances 
is being conducted in collaboration with the Gas Research Institute on 
detection of pipeline mechanical damage by in-line inspection 
equipment, or ``smart pigs.'' The study, which was started in 1996, 
will facilitate the design of smart pigs that can be used for in-line 
inspection of pipelines to detect cracks, dents, gouges, and stress 
corrosion cracking. All of these conditions are potentially detrimental 
to the safe operation of pipelines. The research will specify sensor 
technologies and data evaluation methods to reliably distinguish 
between various types of mechanical damage.
    Question. Please describe the progress made since last year of your 
mapping initiative. When will the project be completed? How much was 
appropriated and spent on this effort in fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 
and planned for fiscal year 1999? What are the remaining challenges?
    Answer. The Joint Government/Industry Pipeline Mapping Quality 
Action Team (MQAT II) was formed in December 1996 and is sponsored by 
RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the American Petroleum 
Institute (API), and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 
(INGAA). Representatives on the Team include the U.S. Geological 
Survey, Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the states of Texas, 
Louisiana, California, and New York, and the natural gas and hazardous 
liquid pipeline industry.
    MQAT II was formed to implement MQAT I's ``Strategies for Creating 
a National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS).'' The strategies outline how 
OPS can develop reasonably accurate pipeline location data without 
creating an undue burden on the pipeline industry. The strategies 
include developing, promoting, and aggressively communicating pipeline 
mapping data standards; forming alliances with other government 
agencies and industry to create and maintain the NPMS; and creating a 
distributed mapping system that allows government agencies and the 
pipeline industry to upgrade and exchange data from remote locations.
    By March 1997, MQAT II had developed draft mapping standards to be 
used in creating the NPMS. The Team conducted an initial pilot test of 
the standards to test the collection and transfer of industry data to 
pilot repositories, and the processing of the data by these 
repositories. In May 1997, MQAT II held a public meeting to present the 
draft standards to interested stakeholders. Feedback from this meeting 
and the initial pilot was used to refine the standards and the 
functions of a repository. OPS, API, and INGAA sent the revised 
standards to the pipeline industry, states and mapping vendors for 
review and comment.
    OPS published two requests for bids in the Commerce Business Daily 
to solicit state and vendor participation in a second pilot test of the 
revised standards. Ten State agencies and six pipeline mapping vendors 
were awarded contracts to act as pilot repositories and to test the 
draft standards and NPMS model. The selected States were Louisiana, 
Minnesota, Utah, California, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, New 
Jersey, and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. The API, 
INGAA, and OPS solicited industry participation and twenty-two pipeline 
companies took part in the second pilot. These companies were asked to 
submit, to the pilot repositories, data on portions of their pipeline 
system in a format that met the standards. The operators were also 
asked to describe the ease or difficulty of meeting the standards, the 
costs incurred and the problems encountered in meeting the standards, 
and the operator's predicted time and effort to submit data in a format 
that met the standards for their entire pipeline system.
    MQAT II recently finished this second pilot. The results have 
helped to determine the remaining problems with the mapping data 
standards and NPMS model, and MQAT II is refining the standards and 
model accordingly. The results also indicate that most pipeline 
operators can cost beneficially meet the draft standards.
    MQAT II will publish revised pipeline mapping data standards by May 
1998. The Team will consider public comments before publicizing the 
final standards. OPS will publish two requests for bids to determine 
which state agencies and pipeline mapping contractors are interested 
in, and qualified to become, the State repositories and the National 
repository. OPS will finalize contracts with the repositories by 
September 1998.
    OPS will begin requesting data from pipeline operators early in 
1999. OPS will begin by asking operators with digital pipeline data to 
submit this data first. Data in a digital format is the most cost 
beneficial for a repository to process. OPS will request that operators 
submit paper data after all digital data has been received and 
processed.
    OPS anticipates that the funding requested in 1999 will allow 70 
percent completion of the NPMS. This 70 percent completion will take 
place during the years 1999 and 2000. OPS anticipates the remaining 30 
percent that is not completed by the year 2000 will be for segments of 
the pipeline network where the operator is in the process of migrating 
from a paper system to a digital database, or where the operator cannot 
accurately locate the pipeline and has chosen to update their records 
through field verification. After the year 2000, OPS will work with 
pipeline operators and the repositories to complete the NPMS, and to 
upgrade and update data in the system as more accurate information 
becomes available.
    The challenges that remain for the OPS and the MQAT II are:
  --Finalizing the NPMS standards;
  --Setting up the state and national repositories;
  --Working with pipeline operators and assisting them with migrating 
        from paper to digital; and
  --Collecting other digital data layer so that OPS can depict 
        pipelines in relation to other vital national resources, such 
        as drinking water, threatened and endangered species, human 
        populations, cultural resources, environmentally sensitive 
        areas, and other transportation networks.
    The following chart depicts the amount appropriated in fiscal year 
1996, 1997, 1998 and planned for 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Amount       Amount spent
               Fiscal year                 appropriated       to date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996....................................      $1,200,000        $415,000
1997....................................         400,000  ..............
1998....................................         400,000  ..............
1999....................................         800,000  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What progress has been made on the memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) with the Gas Research Institute on non-destructive 
evaluation technology? What are the accomplishments to date of this 
partnership? Are there any unobligated balances?
    Answer. The first study under the MOU to be conducted in 
collaboration with the Gas Research Institute addresses non-destructive 
testing by in-line inspection tools or ``smart pigs.'' This study 
commenced in June 1996. The study will improve the analytical ability 
to detect pipe wall cracks, dents, gouges, and stress corrosion 
cracking, mechanical damage which may lead to pipe failure if not 
detected. The research will determine which sensor technologies to 
utilize, and then will adapt the sensor to a test vehicle so that non-
damaging metallurgical inclusions in pipe and the more serious 
mechanical damage can be distinguished. The unobligated balance on this 
study is $447,000, which we plan to obligate in fiscal year 1998.
    Question. Why is it of critical importance to increase funds for 
mapping by $400,000 in fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. MQAT II has conducted several pilot tests over the past 
year. Part of the purpose of these tests was to determine the costs 
involved in converting the electronic data and digitizing the paper 
maps that operators will submit, and bring all of this data into a 
single digital pipeline layer. After reviewing the results of the pilot 
tests on the costs associated with data conversion and creating a 
common pipeline layer, MQAT II recommended that OPS request an increase 
in funding for fiscal year 1999.
    MQAT II believes the increased funding is necessary to complete the 
majority of the NPMS. It is believed that the current level of funding 
for fiscal year 1996 and 1997, and the increase of $400,000 in fiscal 
year 1999, will allow 70 percent completion of the NPMS. The completion 
of the remaining 30 percent of the NPMS will take place over several 
years as pipeline operators and the repositories continue the initial, 
costly process of converting the pipeline data to a digital format.
                          state grant program
    Question. How are the States using funds for risk management and 
assessment activities?
    Answer. The States have used funds for risk management training and 
travel necessary to participate in the OPS risk management 
demonstration projects and stakeholder outreach efforts. State 
participation in these demonstration projects is essential to bring the 
most site-specific, geographic, and socio-economic information into the 
risk evaluation process.
    Question. Please discuss the five key challenges that your grant 
program needs to address during the rest of fiscal year 1998 and in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. From today through fiscal year 1999, OPS hopes to manage 
these five key challenges for the grant program:
  --reducing to zero pipeline incidents caused by noncompliance with 
        regulations strengthening damage prevention efforts at the 
        State-level;
  --transitioning States to a risk-based pipeline safety program;
  --integrity of an integrity focus in the state inspection programs;
  --enhancing communication between Federal and State agencies through 
        improved information systems; and
  --improving damage prevention programs.
    Question. Please discuss the five major accomplishments of your 
grant program during the last year.
    Answer. OPS played a major role in realizing these five major 
accomplishments in the grant program this past year:
  --Texas enacts one-call legislation after years of efforts;
  --Two additional States, Kentucky and South Carolina, participate in 
        the hazardous liquid pipeline safety program, and California 
        expands its jurisdictional authority over municipals;
  --Relations are established with Maine and Hawaii to reenter the 
        program;
  --Thirty-seven applications are processed for State one-call grant 
        funds in 1997; and
  --States participate with OPS in risk management demonstration 
        projects.
    Question. For fiscal year 1997 and 1998, please list the states 
that participated in your hazardous liquids and hazardous gas state 
grants programs. For each participating state, display the amount 
requested by state, the amount of federal funds received, and the 
percentage of federal contribution to total costs represented by that 
grant. What efforts were taken to increase participation in the grant 
program?
    Answer. The following table is provided:

                               1997 NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY GRANTS ALLOCATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Percent
                           State                                Request       State      Allocation        of
                                                                              points                    funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................................        $339,009        100        $304,024         45
Arizona...................................................         362,000        100         324,643         45
Arkansas..................................................         175,913        100         157,759         45
California................................................       1,182,836         95       1,007,733         43
Colorado..................................................         174,362        100         156,368         45
Connecticut...............................................         188,125        100         168,711         45
Delaware..................................................          24,405         95          20,792         43
Florida...................................................          50,000         95          42,598         43
Georgia...................................................         269,147        100         241,372         45
Illinois..................................................         269,723        100         241,889         45
Indiana...................................................         147,439        100         132,223         45
Iowa......................................................         144,200        100         129,319         45
Kansas....................................................         344,623        100         309,059         45
Kentucky..................................................         230,880        100         207,054         45
Louisiana.................................................         332,000        100         297,739         45
Maryland..................................................         156,860        100         140,673         45
Massachusetts.............................................         292,634         95         249,313         43
Michigan..................................................         317,030         95         270,098         43
Minnesota.................................................         515,180        100         462,015         45
Mississippi...............................................         129,250        100         115,912         45
Missouri..................................................         256,005         95         218,107         43
Montana...................................................          30,123         90          24,313         40
Nebraska..................................................          75,660         95          64,460         43
Nevada....................................................         120,269        100         107,857         45
New Hampshire.............................................          78,365        100          70,278         45
New Jersey................................................         332,693        100         298,360         45
New Mexico................................................         170,835         75         114,904         34
New York..................................................       1,257,065        100       1,127,340         45
North Carolina............................................         161,850        100         145,148         45
North Dakota..............................................          43,061        100          38,617         45
Ohio......................................................         476,268        100         427,118         45
Oklahoma..................................................         285,766        100         256,276         45
Oregon....................................................         128,193        100         114,963         45
Pennsylvania..............................................         274,579        100         246,243         45
Puerto Rico...............................................          30,643         95          26,106         43
Rhode Island..............................................          66,511         90          53,683         40
South Dakota..............................................          34,980         90          28,233         40
Tennessee.................................................         235,106        100         210,844         45
Texas.....................................................       1,014,094         95         863,971         43
Utah......................................................         154,000        100         138,108         45
Vermont...................................................          43,363        100          38,888         45
Virginia..................................................         306,165        100         274,570         45
Washington, DC............................................          71,761         95          61,137         43
Washington................................................         202,334        100         181,453         45
West Virginia.............................................         216,041         95         184,059         43
Wisconsin.................................................         186,900         85         142,471         38
Wyoming...................................................          76,500         95          65,175         43
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Totals..............................................      11,974,738  .........      10,501,975         44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. RSPA and the states have agreed to attempt to provide 50 
percent of the states' pipeline safety program funding from the federal 
government. As an aggregate, what percent of the states' pipeline 
safety program funds were appropriated through the OPS state grant 
program in fiscal years 1997 and 1998? Is the total national program 
level increasing due to more active pipeline safety programs at the 
state levels?
    Answer. The ``core program'' grant funds appropriated for fiscal 
years 1997 and 1998 were $12,000,000. The request from the states for 
fiscal year 1997 was $27,327,000 and the funding level was 44 percent. 
The request for fiscal year 1998 was $29,649,000 and the funding level 
is 41 percent. The total national program level is increasing due 
mostly to increased requirements by OPS on jurisdiction and damage 
prevention enhancements and to inflation of program costs.
    Question. Part of the original justification for the increase in 
the pipeline grant program was that with increased funds the states 
would be encouraged to expand their enforcement responsibilities. 
Please provide quantitative data on a state-by-state basis indicating 
whether this has happened.
    Answer. OPS has encouraged states to expand their enforcement 
jurisdiction in the past few years by adding seven new gas and liquid 
programs and twelve new areas of Municipal, LPG or master meter 
operator jurisdiction in their states.
    Question. Please provide an assessment of your monitoring of the 
state grant program. How has OPS improved various state programs?
    Answer. Field evaluation scores and other performance measures are 
used to determine the grant allocation for each State. Each year, OPS 
evaluates the states' pipeline safety programs based on current 
performance measures. OPS monitors state inspections to ensure that the 
Pipeline Safety Regulations are being appropriately enforced. The 
annually submitted State certifications contain data on such factors as 
adequacy of one-call efforts, field inspection days, the number of 
regulations adopted, and inspector qualification.
    Over the last five years, OPS has taken steps to improve our 
oversight of the state pipeline safety programs including the full time 
designation of an inspector in each region office to monitor and 
evaluate activities.
    These inspectors, the state liaison representatives, have worked 
together to improve the monitoring and evaluation process so that areas 
of needed improvement can be more readily identified and corrected. 
When OPS identifies a potential weakness in a state pipeline program, 
we work closely with the program manager to correct the circumstances 
and provide technical support.
    Question. For each participating state, indicate the number of 
times during each of the last three years that OPS conducted an audit, 
a joint inspection, or a training activity.
    Answer. The following chart illustrates the number of times OPS has 
conducted an audit, a joint inspection, and seminar or training 
activity in each state participating in an OPS pipeline safety program.
    The number of joint inspections include the number of joint 
accident response investigations in which OPS has participated. The 
high number of joint inspections for Puerto Rico in 1996 was due to the 
incident in San Juan.
    OPS has given state inspectors training required for certifying a 
pipeline safety program. The numbers of students trained are 279, 218 
and 279 for 1995, 1996 and 1997 respectively.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Number of audits           Number of joint           Training/seminars
                                ---------------------------        inspections        --------------------------
             State                                         ---------------------------
                                   1995     1996     1997     1995     1996     1997     1995     1996     1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL.............................        2        2        2        2        2        3        1        1        1
AZ.............................        2        2        2        3        3        3        2        1        2
AR.............................        1        1        1        1        1        2        1        1  .......
CA.............................        2        2        2        2        2        2        5        6        8
CO.............................        1        1        1        1        1        2        3        1        2
CT.............................        1        1        1        2        2        1  .......  .......  .......
DE.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......  .......  .......
DC.............................        1        1        1        1        1        2  .......  .......  .......
FL.............................        2        2        2        2        2        2        1        2  .......
GA.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        1
IL.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        1  .......
IN.............................        1        1        1        1        1        2  .......  .......        1
IA.............................        1        1        1        1        1        2        1  .......  .......
KS.............................        1        1        1        1        2        1        1        1        1
KY.............................        1        1        2        2        1        2        1        1  .......
LA.............................        2        2        2        2        2        2        2        5        1
MD.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        1        1
MA.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        1
MI.............................        1        1        1        3        1        1  .......  .......        1
MN.............................        2        2        2        5        2        7        2  .......        2
MS.............................        2        2        2        2        2        2        1  .......        2
MO.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        1        1
MT.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        1        1
NE.............................        1        1        1        2        1        1        2  .......        1
NV.............................        1        1        1        1        1        4  .......        1  .......
NH.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        1        1
NJ.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......  .......  .......
NM.............................        1        1        2        1        2        2        3        1  .......
NY.............................        2        2        2        7        3        2  .......  .......        2
NC.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......  .......
ND.............................        1        1        1        1        1        2  .......        1  .......
OH.............................        1        1        1        1        1        2        3        2  .......
OK.............................        2        2        2        2        2        4        3        1  .......
OR.............................        1        1        1        1        1        2  .......  .......        3
PA.............................        1        1        1        2        1        1        2  .......  .......
PR.............................        1        1        1        1   \1\ 49        1  .......  .......        1
RI.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......  .......        1
SC.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1        3  .......  .......
SD.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1        2  .......  .......
TN.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        2
TX.............................        2        2        2        2        3        4        1        5        1
UT.............................        1        1        1        1        1        2  .......        2        2
VT.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......  .......        2
VA.............................        1        2        1        3        3        1        1  .......  .......
WA.............................        1        2        2        1        2        2        2  .......        3
WV.............................        2        2        2        2        2        3  .......        2  .......
WI.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        1
WY.............................        1        1        1        1        1        1  .......        1        3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This increase was due to the major incident in San Juan in 1996.

    Question. Does your general counsel believe it would be legal to 
draw down some OPA funds to pay for an increase in the liquids portion 
of the grant program.
    Answer. Yes. State programs work jointly with OPS in fulfilling the 
OPA mission of preventing oil spills from pipelines. OPA funds may be 
used for prevention activities of OPA.
              risk management program and risk assessment
    Question. What is the status of the risk management demonstration 
projects that were authorized in the Accountable Pipeline Safety and 
Partnership Act?
    Answer. RSPA issued an Order approving its first risk management 
demonstration project on March 18, 1998 (Shell Pipe Line Corporation). 
RSPA is working with seven other companies in the program at this time 
and we are engaged in consultative evaluations. These projects are 
multi-year with many components detailed in work plans. We will monitor 
the work plans over a four year period.
    Several other qualified companies have expressed an interest in 
participating and we have had preliminary meetings with them. We may 
start working with some of them in 1999 provided that we have completed 
the approvals begun in 1998 with the seven already in the process. 
Presently, RSPA may approve up to ten demonstration projects during the 
four year period, consistent with a presidential directive.
    RSPA bases its choice of participating companies on several program 
objectives. While each company has its various strengths and 
distinguishing features, all companies approved or under consideration 
are proposing projects that have the potential to (1) provide superior 
safety, environmental protection, and service reliability; and (2) 
systematically test risk management as a regulatory alternative through 
objective evaluation under a broad range of conditions. Other project 
factors we evaluate include new technologies being tested, ability to 
communicate with OPS, states and the public, geographic diversity, 
corporate commitment to the quality of programs, and the company's 
safety and environmental record. All projects are subject to public 
comment and extensive review by RSPA and affected states.
    Question. Who are the participants in those demonstration projects? 
What progress has been made in each of those projects? Is funding for 
those demos provided through the risk assessment/technical studies 
contract program, or through the risk management grants program?
    Answer. The eight companies RSPA is working with in 1998 are: Shell 
Pipe Line Corporation (RSPA issued the Order approving the Shell 
project on March 18, 1998); Chevron Pipe Line Company (RSPA has 
completed consultations with Chevron and has asked Chevron to submit a 
formal written application); Phillips Pipe Line Company (RSPA has 
completed consultations with Phillips and has asked Phillips to submit 
a formal written application); Mobil Pipe Line Company (RSPA has 
completed consultations with Mobil and has asked Mobil to submit a 
formal written application); Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation/
Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (RSPA is still engaged in 
consultations with Columbia); Florida Gas Transmission Company (RSPA is 
still engaged in consultations with Florida Gas); Natural Gas 
Transmission Company (NGPL) (RSPA is still engaged in consultations 
with NGPL); and Northwest Pipeline (RSPA plans to continue 
consultations with Northwest in the fall).
    The companies RSPA may work with in 1999 include CNG Transmission 
Corporation, Duke Energy, and Tennessee Gas Pipeline/East Tennessee 
Natural Gas.
    Funding for support of these demonstration projects is provided 
under both Risk Assessment & Technical Studies (RATS) and Risk 
Management Grants. Funding from Risk Assessment & Technical Studies 
(partially derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) is used for 
contractor support for evaluation and monitoring of demonstration 
projects.
    The Risk Management Grant funding enables affected States to take 
part in a number of activities that support risk management. These 
include risk management training, demonstration project evaluations, 
and participation in teams improving pipeline data forming the basis 
for risk assessments. State participation brings the most site-
specific, geographic, and socio-economic information into the risk 
evaluation process.
    Question. How much funding was associated with those demonstration 
projects in fiscal year 1998, and how much is requested for fiscal year 
1999?
    Answer. The funding requested for the demonstration projects in 
fiscal year 1999 remains unchanged from the funding enacted in fiscal 
year 1998.
    Of the $1.2 million RSPA requested under Risk Assessment & 
Technical Studies in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, RSPA 
expects to dedicate approximately $900,000 to the demonstration 
projects. For both years, $200,000 of this amount will be derived from 
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).
    In fiscal year 1998, RSPA dedicated the $500,000 appropriation 
under Risk Management Grants to activities supporting the risk 
management initiative. RSPA has requested $500,000 in Risk Management 
Grants for fiscal year 1999.
    Question. Please provide a list of each of the contracts funded by 
the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 appropriations for risk 
assessment and technical studies, indicating purpose and amount of 
each.
    Answer. In fiscal year 1997, RSPA funded Cycla Corporation $1.1 
million using Risk Assessment & Technical Studies appropriations.
    So far in fiscal year 1998, RSPA funded Cycla Corporation $800,000 
using these appropriations ($200,000 of these funds were derived from 
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund). RSPA expects to add another 
$100,000 to this contract from Risk Assessment & Technical Studies 
appropriations before the end of fiscal year 1998.
    Cycla Corporation supports RSPA efforts to: guide all participating 
companies in developing and implementing risk management programs 
consistent with the Program Standard; provide mechanisms for meaningful 
community involvement; and administer the Program consistent with the 
Program Framework. Cycla supports the multiple meetings required 
between companies, OPS headquarters and regional staff, and affected 
state pipeline officials, enabling all participants to reach agreement 
on demonstration project provisions or modifications. Cycla support 
helps ensure that all issues raised are shared among all evaluators or 
auditors, resolved with the company, summarized for interested 
stakeholders, posted and updated in the various communication 
mechanisms (including the Internet information system which receives an 
average of 1600 hits per week, Federal Register notices, prospectus, 
and electronic town meetings), and thoroughly documented for OPS files. 
In fiscal year 1999, OPS expects to use Cycla support in evaluating a 
few additional demonstration projects, in monitoring the seven projects 
expected to be approved in fiscal year 1998, in refining demonstration 
project performance monitoring measures and approaches, and in 
investigating the feasibility of risk management for local distribution 
companies (LDC).
    Risk Assessment & Technical Studies appropriations are also used 
for smaller contracts for communication activities using state-of-the-
art technologies combining satellite and the Internet (4300 viewers 
participated in our last live broadcast), miscellaneous administrative 
support, support for public meetings and conferences, publication of 
Federal Register notices, and development and delivery of training.
    Question. How will the OPS ensure that equal or greater levels of 
safety are achieved by companies that are participating in the 
demonstration projects? How will the safety performance of these 
companies be evaluated?
    Answer. Although the statute requires ``equal or greater'' safety, 
the Demonstration Program developed by OPS and its stakeholders is 
consistent with a Presidential Directive that each project achieve 
``superior levels of public safety and environmental protection when 
compared with regulatory requirements that otherwise would apply.''
    OPS has designed several mechanisms into the review and approval of 
demonstration projects that will ensure their superior performance. For 
example, each project must have built-in and predefined accountability 
mechanisms--called performance measures--that ensure the expected 
results. The performance measures will be part of a company's project 
proposal, will be specific to each project, and will be used by OPS to 
audit companies' safety. Companies must define and achieve safety 
goals, rather than simply comply with regulations.
    The base criteria for project-specific measures OPS will accept 
are:
  --Support the intent of achieving superior safety relevant to the 
        risk control activities.
  --Track short- and long-term effectiveness.
  --Document starting conditions to establish a performance baseline.
  --Establish expected outcomes in the form of discrete values or 
        ranges.
  --Enable auditing, monitoring and documentation.
    During the evaluation of demonstration projects, OPS also sees if 
companies are employing the new process described in the Program 
Standard and Program Framework. These new processes result in a 
comprehensive, systematic, and integrated approach to assessing and 
addressing pipeline risks. The processes also ensure that the most 
broad-based input possible--from throughout the company, from State and 
Federal government agencies, and from affected communities--can be 
factored into the provisions of a demonstration project.
    Finally, the risk reduction activities companies implement must 
also lead to superior safety. OPS follows its review protocols in 
determining if a demonstration project proposal can lead to superior 
safety.
                                one-call
    Question. What work does OPS have underway regarding the ``best 
practices'' employed by one-call systems in operation in the states? 
How are you encouraging states to adopt those ``best practices''? How 
much is planned for this activity in fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. The Underground Damage Prevention Act of 1997, which 
prescribes best practices for one-call systems, was submitted to the 
Senate and House as Title I of DOT's Transportation Safety Act of 1997. 
This proposed bill promotes one-call systems with statewide coverage, 
effective mechanisms for enforcement, 24-hour coverage, and provisions 
for public and excavator education. The bill provides incentives to 
States to adopt these best practices by prescribing widely-accepted and 
flexible elements for a State one-call program, supporting grants to 
fund such improvements, and defining a federal model program to assist 
States.
    OPS also assists the States to implement these best practices by 
building greater awareness of damage prevention and one-call systems 
with its plans for a national damage prevention campaign, and 
participating in hearings to support State one-call legislation. For 
fiscal year 1999, RSPA is requesting $200,000 for a national public 
education campaign on damage prevention.
    Question. What are you doing to motivate states to improve their 
one-call notification systems and excavation damage prevention 
activities? How much is planned for that activity in fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. In the past few years, many States have improved their one-
call notification systems and damage prevention activities by 
strengthening State one-call legislation, increasing enforcement 
efforts, and continuing public education. This notable increase in one-
call efforts have occurred since OPS has made one-call grant funds 
available to States. OPS is requesting $1 million in one-call grant 
funds to States for fiscal year 1999.
    In addition, States participating in the pipeline safety program 
receive grants based on performance, which is partially assessed by the 
State's advancement of one-call legislation and enforcement.
    Question. What are you doing to examine the effectiveness and 
accuracy of the mapping techniques currently used by one-call 
notification systems? How much is planned for that activity in fiscal 
year 1999?
    Answer. The Joint Government/Industry Pipeline Mapping Quality 
Action Teams (MQAT I and MQAT II) have contacted the one-call centers 
and One-Call Systems International to determine how each one-call 
center catalogs and stores the pipeline location data that operators 
submit. The Teams determined that most one-call centers store the 
pipeline location according to a location grid stored in tabular 
databases with no reference to geographic coordinates. Grid or corridor 
size varies significantly between one-call systems and, as a result, so 
do pipeline location accuracy levels. Much of the detailed pipeline 
location information originally submitted by pipeline operators is 
generalized by the use of grids.
    Only a few State one-call systems have computerized mapping systems 
or pipeline information that identifies longitude and latitude on a 
base map. For these systems, pipeline operators indicate a buffer zone 
around the pipeline that can be as large or as small as the pipeline 
operator desires. When the center receives an excavation call, the one-
call center identifies which members have polygons or corridors that 
fall within the dig site polygon and notifications are issued. Since 
this type of system is more accurate, it decreases the number of phone 
calls the one-call center has to make or to which the pipeline operator 
has to respond.
    With the recent decreases in the cost of mapping systems, and the 
benefits of the mapping systems, some of the one-call centers are 
migrating to graphical-database mapping systems. OPS will monitor this 
activity in fiscal year 1999 and beyond and will encourage one-call 
centers to migrate to more locationally accurate geographic information 
systems.
    Question. What is the status of your national one-call campaign? 
When will the pilot tests be conducted?
    Answer. The Damage Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT)completed 
its assessment of existing damage prevention materials. DAMQAT 
conducted a nationwide survey to assess the level of damage prevention 
awareness and damage prevention practices among professional 
excavators. This in-depth survey also identified which damage 
prevention materials are most effective. This information was used to 
design the print and broadcast materials for the pilot campaigns. The 
pilot tests will be conducted from May through October 1998 in 
Virginia, Tennessee and Georgia.
    Question. What could be done to accelerate those efforts? Why has 
it taken so long to get that campaign off the ground?
    Answer. All DAMQAT Team members are employed full time in other 
capacities. DAMQAT first met in October 1996. By the spring of 1997, 
the Team had completed its review of existing materials and identified 
the need to design more effective ones. Before committing a 
considerable amount of public monies to this effort, we thought it 
prudent to assess the level of damage prevention awareness and damage 
prevention practices. The results were used to modify existing 
materials and design new ones, as necessary. Assessment of existing 
materials, conduct of the nationwide survey, and design of new 
materials are all labor intensive efforts which have to be completed 
prior to conducting the pilot campaign.
    Question. During fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, what were 
the specific uses, on a contract-by-contract basis, of the funds 
provided for one-call?
    Answer. Cycla Inc. is the prime contractor for all damage 
prevention activities through an IDIQ (indefinite duration indefinite 
quantity) contract. Cycla has sub-contracts with other entities to 
conduct activities outside the scope of Cycla's expertise. Contract 
funds were used to assist in evaluating existing damage prevention 
materials, conduct the national survey of damage prevention awareness 
and practices, develop a marketing campaign for the pilot program, 
produce print and broadcast media for the pilot and public relations 
for the pilot campaign. Edge Research conducted the national survey. 
Traken, Burden and Charles is the advertising/PR firm selected to 
conduct the pilot campaign.
    Question. Please discuss the five key challenges that your internal 
(as opposed to the state grant) one-call program needs to address 
during the rest of fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999.
    Answer. The challenges are: (1) orchestrating a comprehensive 
response to damage prevention which gains the support of all key 
interests; (2) collecting comprehensive data on excavation damage to 
underground facilities including the full costs of repair, lost 
business and other downstream losses; (3) generating matching funds 
from interested parties to underwrite costs of the pilot; (4) working 
with individual states to strengthen their one-call laws; (5) passing 
national damage prevention legislation.
    Question. Please discuss the five major accomplishments of your 
(internal) one-call program during the last year.
    Answer. The agency has adopted the term `damage prevention' rather 
than `one-call' because one-call is just the first of several steps in 
the damage prevention process. First, OPS submitted comprehensive 
Damage Prevention legislation to Congress; second, OPS provides 
administrative support for DAMQAT activities and oversees DAMQAT 
contracts for evaluating materials, the national survey, advertising 
and public relations activities, etc.; third, in organizing DAMQAT, OPS 
moved beyond the pipeline community to include all groups which are key 
players in damage prevention: states, professional excavators, one-call 
centers, insurance and telecommunications. Fourth, OPS conducted the 
first in-depth nationwide survey of key groups: professional 
excavators, state, county and municipal public works employees, 
facility operators and the public. The survey provides baseline data on 
damage prevention awareness and practices for design of materials for 
the pilot campaign and enables OPS to gauge the success of the pilot. 
Fifth, OPS will launch its pilot Damage Prevention campaign.
    Question. What percentage of natural gas and liquid pipeline 
releases and accidents can be attributed to 3rd party damage?
    Answer. For 1997, 20 percent of all incidents involving hazardous 
liquid lines was attributable to third party damage. For natural gas, 
26 percent of transmission line incidents and 38 percent of 
distribution line incidents were caused by third party damage. Third 
party damage was the cause for 27 percent of all pipeline incidents.
    Question. OPS is requesting to use $1 million of funds from the 
reserves of the Pipeline Safety Fund to pay for grants to States for 
setting up and improving the efficiency of one-call systems. How did 
you determine that this was an appropriate amount?
    Answer. The $1 million requested by OPS is not from the reserves of 
the Pipeline Safety Fund, but the user fee collection OPS has utilized 
this requested amount in the last three years to assist with 
establishing and improving one-call programs within the States.
    Question. Did you try to get OMB or OST to allow you to draw down 
more of the balance in the pipeline safety fund for this purpose? How 
much did you originally request in your submission to OST as well as 
OMB? How would you spend an additional $500,000 if it were provided?
    Answer. Yes, our request to OST and OMB asked for $1 million to be 
derived from the prior year balance of the pipeline safety fund for 
One-Call Grants. We subsequently determined that the current level of 
reserve funding was justified in light of OPS' need to draw down about 
$11 million from the reserve each year to sustain OPS operations until 
new user fees are collected, and the $16 million in general find 
support that this program received in 1986 and 1987 while the pipeline 
safety fees were disputed in court.
    In 1998, with restricted grant application amounts (a maximum of 
$50,000 per state), we were able to fund at an average of 80 percent of 
the request. All applying states requested funding of $1,375,190. The 
additional funding would further encourage states to work on one-call 
legislation, additional compliance activities, facility identification 
and location improvement projects, coordination of areas with multiple 
one-call centers, membership in one-call centers, and public and 
excavator education.
    Question. Last year, the Committee stated that OPS and its damage 
prevention quality team needed to accelerate its efforts to assist 
States in advancing one-call systems, and expand the scope of its 
efforts toward a more systematic approach to the one-call challenge. 
How did you respond to that direction?
    Answer. OPS, through the Department of Transportation, submitted 
legislation to Congress requiring states to mandate participation by 
all facility operators in local one-call systems in order to qualify 
for certain one-call grants. This legislative proposal was designed to 
eliminate differences in one-call participation among facility 
operators from state to state. The DAMQAT national survey identified 
problems in one-call usage and made recommendations to the states 
through the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives to 
expand facility participation in their states as well as use of one-
call systems by professional excavators.
    Question. For each of the suggestions specified by the Committee in 
the first paragraph of page 151 of Senate report 105-55, please 
indicate how OPS has responded and how OPS will continue to respond?
    Answer. The first suggestion is that OPS work with the States, 
industry and various public agencies to increase participation by 
facility operators as members of notifications systems. The DAMQAT team 
includes representation from all the groups suggested in the report. 
Team members support participation by their organizations in 
notification systems. This has been especially true of the National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the 
National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), both 
state groups, who have strongly supported participation by all 
operators of underground utilities. The second suggestion was that OPS 
should redouble its efforts to work with excavators. The Association of 
General Contractors is represented on DAMQAT. The AGC member provides 
valuable recommendations on the appropriate techniques to educate 
excavators on damage prevention. DAMQAT has responded to a finding in 
our national survey that professional excavators want more training 
materials. We are producing a training video which emphasizes the 
importance of having lines marked prior to excavation, hand digging 
when appropriate, as well as print ads in construction trade journals. 
The report also suggested that DAMQAT should identify best practices 
and help develop model programs. The survey identified best practices 
among excavators; our training materials and print and broadcast media 
all emphasize the critical steps in safe digging. The DOT's damage 
prevention legislation contained a provision for developing a model 
program. This provision was not included in the version of the bill 
which was passed by the Senate and is now before the House. OPS also 
provides other technical assistance and guidance to states on improving 
their damage prevention programs through its state liaisons and by 
working with states to strengthen their damage prevention laws.
    Question. Please update past data provided to Congress on the 
status of one-call systems, their completeness, effectiveness, 
legislative status, and enforcement capabilities of the States. How 
many, and which, States have utilized one-call grant funds to establish 
one-call programs? Have any States established one-call programs 
without the use of federal grant funds?
    Answer. Within the past four years, fourteen States have passed or 
improved one-call legislation: Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, North 
Dakota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, 
Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
    Since the incident in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1996, we have been 
working closely with Puerto Rico (PR) to seek legislative authority to 
create a one-call center.
    There is also a growing number of states with a strong one-call 
enforcement mechanism (Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia) that includes:
  --A specific agency with jurisdiction over excavators and facility 
        operators.
  --Authority to issue immediate citations and the power to collect 
        penalties.
  --Administrative encouragement and staff assigned to enforce the law.
    Fewer than 20 States do not require all underground facility 
operators to belong to one-call organizations. We expect several state 
legislatures to enact or modify one-call legislation for this purpose.
    About half of the States have emergency service available on a 24-
hour basis. In States without 24-hour emergency service, excavators 
have to notify operators of impending excavation after business hours.
    OPS also utilizes one-call grant funds to support States to 
establish one-call programs. This past year, 33 State programs have 
requested one-call grants to further their efforts with one-call 
activities in the following States: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, 
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, 
Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming and the District of Columbia.
    Question. How are you using new authorities provided in the 
Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act to improve one-call 
systems?
    Answer. These authorities allow us to fund one-call systems 
directly rather than giving funds to states for distribution to one-
call centers.
    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of RSPA's one-
call damage prevention team, and highlight any recommendations that 
have been made.
    Answer. DAMQAT has completed its assessment of existing damage 
prevention materials and sponsored a nationwide survey to assess levels 
of damage prevention awareness and practices. Findings from the survey 
were used to design materials for the pilot campaigns in Virginia, 
Tennessee and Georgia. The team has recommended that key interests 
contribute to funding to the pilot campaign, and that key figures 
within their industries use their highly visible positions to encourage 
participation in one-call systems and use of the key damage prevention 
elements identified by the Team. The Team also recommends that, without 
exception, all facility operators be required to participate in one-
call systems, and that all excavators be required to call before 
digging. In particular, the Team has identified the need for state, 
county and municipal public works departments to use one-call systems 
and additional measures, such as hand digging and observing the 
markings when they excavate.
    Question. Please describe the results of the one-call survey and 
how the data were used in developing a national campaign or in other 
ways.
    Answer. The results of the survey showed the level of awareness of 
damage prevention practices among four groups: professional excavators, 
state, county and municipal public works employees, facility operators, 
and the general public. There is a very high level of one-call 
awareness even among the general public. The survey also gauged the 
practices of the three specialty groups: excavators, public works 
employees, and facility operators. Professional excavators are most 
likely to observe best practices in addition to one-call. These 
include: waiting the required time as set in each jurisdiction before 
digging; observing the marks made by the facility operators, i.e. 
digging within a set tolerance of the lines; hand digging when 
approaching the lines. Each of these steps is necessary to avoid damage 
to underground facilities. In addition, professional excavators often 
held meetings at the construction site with facility operators. These 
findings made it clear that damage prevention efforts have to emphasize 
steps in addition to use of one-call. The materials developed for the 
pilot campaign focus on damage prevention as a multi-step process and 
note the responsibility that each party has to communicate with others 
involved at the particular excavation site to avoid damage.
    Question. How did you use the additional funds provided last year 
to improve the one-call system?
    Answer. In addition to encouraging states to pass or reinforce one-
call legislation, OPS has invested in state one-call programs that have 
increased public awareness and education programs through seminars, 
literature, and electronic databases like the Internet. OPS has helped 
map state pipelines and support other state projects such as:
  --digitizing pipeline information for use with GIS systems;
  --producing a statewide excavator's manual;
  --enhancing one-call center membership;
  --improving one-call violation case processing; and
  --increasing field investigations to identify one-call violations.
    Question. What specific commitments for cost sharing have you 
gotten from the private sector to help pay the one-call/damage 
prevention outreach effort.
    Answer. The American Petroleum Institute has earmarked $5,000 for 
the purchase of phone cards to be used as promotional material. We 
expect that some long distance carriers will also underwrite this 
effort. The One Call Systems International representative has been very 
generous with her expertise in conducting damage prevention campaigns. 
Virtually all members of the team provided sample damage prevention 
materials for our evaluation; several provided research that had been 
done for industry and trade groups. In terms of participation on 
DAMQAT, private sector participants, both pipeline and other 
industries, have absorbed the costs of salaries and travel, as well as 
providing meeting space, staff support and essential supplies for Team 
meetings. It would be very difficult to quantify these outlays. 
According to one estimate, the cost of underwriting participation in 
each meeting is $2,500. This is based upon an estimate of two days of 
meetings, one day of preparation and one day of travel at annual salary 
of $90,000 for a pipeline engineer, plus airfare and hotel. OPS does 
not receive any direct cash contributions.
    For example, the American Petroleum Institute has an annual budget 
of $300,000 for damage prevention public education that it undertakes 
directly. API and other trade associations and companies expect to pool 
their resources in support of the campaign developed by the Team.
                         regulatory activities
    Question. Please specify the nature of any National Transportation 
Safety Board pipeline safety recommendations that remain open or have 
been closed because of an unsatisfactory response. What is OPS doing 
about each of them?
    Answer. OPS currently has 31 NTSB recommendations that are 
classified by NTSB as `Open'. Open NTSB recommendations and OPS' 
actions are outlined by category below. OPS continues to have 
productive discussions with NTSB to resolve all open recommendations.
Inspection/Testing Requirements
    P-87-4: Require periodic testing and inspections to identify 
corrosion and other time-dependent damages.
    P-87-5: Establish criteria to determine appropriate intervals for 
inspections and tests.
    We do not require hydrostatic retesting on a periodic basis. 
Current technical and economic data do not support the establishment of 
an arbitrary period to retest or conduct instrumented pig surveys. OPS 
is approaching this testing and inspection on an as-needed basis to 
identify corrosion-caused and other time-dependent damages. RSPA 
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to open up for 
public comment an assortment of proposed solutions to potential 
pipeline safety problems (52 FR 4361; February 11, 1987). The notion of 
requiring operators to inspect or test pipelines periodically to 
determine their operational integrity was one of those solutions. Based 
on the public comments, opinions of our pipeline safety advisory 
committees, and the results of a study we had sent to Congress under 
Sec. 210 of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, we 
concluded that inspection and testing of all pipelines at preset 
intervals to assess integrity was not justified (55 FR 23515; June 8, 
1990). This conclusion was confirmed by a subsequent study of periodic 
smart pig inspection that we sent to Congress under Sec. 304 of the 
Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act of 1988. Contributing to this 
decision was our belief that the uncertainties involved in predicting 
the behavior of time-dependent defects make it impossible to develop 
valid criteria for calculating the appropriate frequency of inspections 
and tests.
    OPS believes the development of such criteria is beyond the current 
state-of-the-art because criteria to determine what intervals are 
appropriate for inspections and tests would have to account for all 
flaw-growth mechanisms and growth rates. Many flaw-growth mechanisms, 
such as stress corrosion cracking, depend on environmental and 
metallurgical conditions about which operators have little knowledge. 
In an upcoming NPRM, OPS intends to propose that operators judge what 
inspections and testing are needed based on operational and 
geographical factors that indicate the level of risk a pipeline poses. 
This determination will be based on specified and measurable risk 
factors, established in the NPRM.
    P-87-23: Establish criteria for determining safe service intervals 
between hydrostatic retests.
    OPS does not require hydrostatic retesting of existing pipelines, 
unless such action is indicated by major repairs. OPS believes that 
hydrostatic retests should be performed on a case-by-case basis, taking 
into account leak history and other relevant operational factors. This 
approach is consistent with the requirements of Sections 108 and 207 of 
the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act of 1988, which directed OPS to 
determine the frequency and type of mandatory pipeline tests on a case-
by-case basis. OPS is evaluating this recommendation to determine if a 
risk-based approach to hydrostatic retesting can be adopted.
Hydrogen Sulfide Pipelines
    P-88-1: Establish maximum allowable concentration of H2S 
in gas pipelines.
    P-88-2: Require reporting of all incidents where concentration of 
H2S is in excess of maximum allowable concentrations.
    P-88-3: Require installation of equipment to detect excess 
concentrations of H2S.
    In March 1996, OPS withdrew an NPRM that proposed changes in the 
Pipeline Safety regulations to address the hazard of excessive levels 
of hydrogen sulfide in natural gas transmission pipelines. A review of 
information and comment from many sources, including advice from the 
Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC), indicated that a 
regulation to address hydrogen sulfide in transmission lines is not 
warranted.
Recommendations from the Edison, New Jersey, Incident
    P-95-4: Expedite the completion of the study on methods to reduce 
public safety risks in the siting and proximity of pipelines.
    OPS completed a two-year contract with the New Jersey Institute of 
Technology (NJIT) to study the probability and consequences of pipeline 
failures on gas and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities located in 
high risk areas. Because OPS has no authority regarding the siting of 
pipelines, the NJIT analysis was limited to identifying methods to 
reduce public safety risks in relation to the proximity of pipelines to 
public facilities and high population density areas. In addition, the 
parts of Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 219 that 
address pipeline right-of-way safety issues is being made available to 
appropriate officials in all states. Feedback from the states will 
assist in RSPA's evaluation of population encroachment issues. A report 
on RSPA's evaluation of population encroachment issues will be 
completed in fiscal year 1999.
    P-91-1: Establish standards for detecting leaks.
    OPS sponsored a study by the Volpe National Transportation Systems 
Center (VNTSC) on the potential of leak-detection systems to reduce the 
risks from hazardous liquid pipeline leaks. The report, entitled 
``Remote Control Spill Reduction Technology: A Survey and Analysis of 
Applications for Liquid Pipeline Systems,'' was issued by VNTSC in 
September 1995. In addition, OPS will soon publish a final rule to 
incorporate by reference a publication of the American Petroleum 
Institute entitled, API 1130 ``Computational Pipeline Monitoring.'' 
This requires operators of hazardous liquid pipelines use API 1130 in 
conjunction with other information in the design, evaluation, 
operation, maintenance, and testing of their software-based leak 
detection systems. This will result in a significant advancement toward 
the acceptance of leak detection technology on hazardous liquid 
pipelines, but will not require the installation of computational leak 
detection systems where they are not already installed.
    P-95-2: Develop toughness standards for new pipe installed in gas 
and hazardous liquid pipelines.
    OPS is working with the American Petroleum Institute (API) 
Committee API 5L to update pipe toughness requirements. OPS expects to 
adopt into the pipeline safety regulations the latest standard accepted 
by the API committee.
    P-95-1: Expedite requirements for installing automatic or remote-
operated mainline valves on high pressure pipelines.
    Congress has mandated the use of remote control valves (RCV) on 
interstate natural gas pipeline facilities if, after a survey and 
assessment, it is determined that the use of RCV's is technically and 
economically feasible and would reduce risks associated with a rupture 
of a natural gas pipeline facility. Similarly, the Joint Inspection 
Task Force recommendations, as outlined in OPS' New Jersey 
Comprehensive Inspection Report, recommended that technical study be 
initiated to establish criteria for the installation of automatic or 
remote valves on gas transmission pipelines.
    In response, the Research and Special Programs Administration 
(RSPA) held a public meeting on October 30, 1997, in Houston, Texas, 
with representatives of industry, state and local government, and the 
public on the use of remotely controlled valves (RCV's) on natural gas 
pipeline facilities to gather information on relevant technical and 
economic issues. OPS has also been monitoring the valve study of 
INGAA's Valve Task Group, and has reviewed a final report sponsored by 
the Gas Research Institute (GRI) entitled, ``Remote and Automatic Main 
Line Valve Technology Assessment.'' OPS has requested the Gas Piping 
Technology Committee, which produces the Guide for Gas Transmission and 
Distribution Piping Systems, to develop guidance for the placement of 
automatic and remote-controlled valves. A report on the technical and 
economic feasibility of requiring RCV's on interstate gas transmission 
lines will be completed in late fiscal year 1998.
Relationship w/MMS and Other Federal Agencies
    P-90-29: Require inspection, burial, and protection of submerged 
pipelines.
    OPS contracted with Texas A&M University to conduct a study of 
underwater inspection of offshore pipelines to determine if pipeline 
depth and condition constitute a hazard to navigation. The final report 
of the study reviewed current methods and recommended intervals for 
risk-based, periodic inspections of offshore pipelines. The results of 
the study are being evaluated as part of a rulemaking to require 
operators of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to conduct 
periodic underwater inspections of offshore pipelines and those in 
navigable waterways. This action would also define what constitutes an 
exposed underwater pipeline and what constitutes a hazard to navigation 
or public safety. This could include requirements for the reburial of 
exposed pipelines.
    P-90-31: Evaluate need for emergency planning and coordination 
between offshore pipeline operators and producers.
    OPS issued an Advisory Bulletin (ADB-94-04) on April 5, 1994, 
regarding the need for emergency planning and coordination between 
pipeline operators and offshore producers. OPS is increasing its 
efforts with the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Minerals Management Service (MMS) and others to clarify jurisdiction 
and authorities. Most notably, OPS has signed and implemented a 
Memorandum of Understanding to clarify agency responsibilities for 
offshore pipeline safety and inspection.
Leak Detection/One-Call: Public Education & Performance Standards
    P-90-21: Assess industry programs for educating public on dangers 
of gas leaks.
    OPS, industry, states, and local government representatives are 
cooperating in the Damage Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT) to 
identify the audiences most in need of education about excavation 
damage prevention and gas leaks and to find the most effective ways to 
reach each audience. We have adapted available materials and are 
developing new ones for use in the pilot education campaign that will 
be launched in May 1998 in Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia.
    The Senate passed S. 1115, the Comprehensive One-Call Notification 
Act of 1997, which would set minimum performance standards for one-call 
notification programs to improve participation and performance of 
existing state programs. Incentive grants would encourage states to 
strengthen laws that protect excavators, the public, and underground 
facilities from damage. The bill allows the Secretary to initiate a 
study of best practices among one-call notifications systems and would 
authorize one million dollars in fiscal year 1999 and five million in 
fiscal year 2000 for grants to states that improve one-call programs. 
The bill has been introduced in the House as HR 3318.
    Office of Pipeline Safety state liaisons work with the states in 
their regions to improve existing one-call legislation by testifying at 
state legislative hearings and providing supporting material which 
documents the effectiveness of one-call systems and comprehensive 
damage prevention legislation.
Guidance in the Pipeline Safety Regulations
    P-84-26: Require level of safety for HVL pipelines comparable to 
natural gas pipelines.
    OPS issued a Final Rule (Docket PS-113; 59 FR 6579, February 11, 
1994) on ``Operation & Maintenance Procedures for Pipelines,'' which 
requires greater consistency of operation & maintenance procedures for 
natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The rule also requires that 
operators update their Operations and Maintenance manuals each calendar 
year. Currently, OPS and NTSB are discussing similar measures that may 
be needed for other areas such as establishing criteria for the 
performance of systems used to monitor the operation of pipelines.
    P-87-2: Require operators to annually qualify employees.
    P-97-7: Complete a final rule on employee qualification, training, 
and testing standards within one year.
    The Secretary convened a Negotiated Rulemaking (RegNeg) committee 
on qualification of pipeline personnel performing operations & 
maintenance and emergency response functions. The committee reached a 
consensus on a proposed rule on operator qualification in January 1998. 
A proposed rule will be published in Spring 1998. The rule will require 
that all persons performing certain safety-related operations and 
maintenance tasks on a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline be qualified to 
safely perform these tasks.
    P-87-3: Require operators to examine exposed pipelines for external 
corrosion.
    Although pipeline companies already examine exposed pipelines for 
external corrosion, OPS will consider requirements for both natural gas 
and hazardous liquid pipelines as part of a larger examination of 
protection against corrosion. This examination will examine all aspects 
of corrosion protection for pipelines and possibly revise the corrosion 
protection requirements of both the gas and hazardous liquid pipeline 
regulations.
    P-87-26: Obtain data on ERW pipe to determine hazards to public 
safety.
    As a consequence of the unique safety problems with longitudinal 
seams on certain Electronic Resistance Welded (ERW) pipe manufactured 
before 1970, OPS published a Final Rule (Docket PS-121; 59 FR 29370; 
June 7, 1994) on Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon 
Dioxide Pipelines. The final rule provides that operators may not 
transport a hazardous liquid in a steel interstate pipeline constructed 
before January 8, 1971, a steel interstate offshore gathering line 
constructed before August 1, 1977, or a steel intrastate pipeline 
constructed before October 21, 1985, unless the pipeline has been 
pressure tested hydrostatically according to current standards or 
operates at 80 percent or less of a qualified prior test or operating 
pressure. In addition, OPS has prepared a proposed rule on risk-based 
alternatives to pressure testing that may result in a further decrease 
of the risks posed by pre-1970 ERW pipe.
    P-87-34: Require operators to maintain maps and records.
    P-90-04: Identify the type, number location and owner of all 
offshore pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico.
    OPS co-sponsors a joint Government/Industry Pipeline Mapping 
Quality Action Team (MQAT) which has analyzed various mapping 
alternatives and determined a cost-effective strategy for creating an 
accurate depiction of natural gas and hazardous liquid transmission 
pipelines and LNG facilities in the United States. The team's report, 
which OPS is reviewing, included:
  --Investigating the pipeline mapping issues in detail and identifying 
        the challenges of creating a National Pipeline Mapping System 
        (NPMS);
  --Determining the status of mapping today and understanding current 
        mapping practices and specific mapping products;
  --Evaluating various mapping alternatives and their cost 
        effectiveness;
  --Identifying the U.S. Geological Survey's 1:100,000 scale map series 
        as the appropriate base map for the NPMS;
  --Developing a strategic plan for a NPMS; and
  --Agreeing on evaluation criteria; in particular, agreeing that 
        pipeline coverage and integration with other data is more 
        important than positional accuracy.
    In addition, MQAT II has created mapping standards that will be 
used to create the NPMS. OPS will begin collecting pipeline and LNG 
data, using these standards, in 1999.
    OPS is also working with state and other federal agencies to create 
the NPMS. OPS is working with several state agencies to gather data on 
offshore pipelines, including data from the states of Texas and 
Louisiana, who have completed data collection on most, if not all the 
pipelines in the Gulf that fall within their jurisdiction.
    Finally, OPS completed a full collection of CAD-generated blue 
print block mapping of all pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. These maps 
depict the type, number, location, and owner of all offshore Gulf of 
Mexico pipelines by lease block.
    P-89-6: Establish requirement to maintain proper functioning of 
check valves.
    P-90-24: Define various terms used for valves.
    Through its risk-based efforts, OPS is supporting installation of 
check valves or remote control valves on liquid pipelines in all high 
risk areas to provide for rapid isolation of failed pipeline segments. 
In addition, OPS completed a report on a check valve study that 
addresses the issues outlined in the two recommendations.
    P-90-15: Identify regulations not containing explicit objectives/
criteria.
    P-90-16: Develop guidance for operator compliance with regulations 
not containing explicit objectives/criteria.
    OPS is presently undergoing extensive regulatory reform efforts 
resulting from the President's ``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative'' 
(RRI) that focus on reducing the burden of government regulations and 
requires that agencies review all regulations and eliminate or revise 
those that are outdated or in need of reform. OPS has reviewed the 
pipeline safety regulations and has published regulatory actions that 
will lessen unnecessary burdens on the pipeline industry by revising or 
updating areas including gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas safety 
standards, administrative practices, and industry standards 
incorporated by reference. In keeping with RRI, these regulatory 
revisions are performance based; they provide much latitude for 
pipeline operators to address risks. The risk-based requirements 
contemplated for the future regulatory regime will develop risk-based 
guidance to assist operators in complying with regulations not 
containing explicit design requirements.
    Further, OPS revised and redistributed the Guidance Manual for 
Operators of Small Natural Gas Systems. This manual provides a broad 
overview of compliance responsibilities, and is designed for non-
technically trained people who operate master meter systems, small 
natural gas systems, and small municipal or independent systems.
    P-90-19: Extend regulations to cover buried lines from outlet of 
meter to customer building.
    OPS published a Final Rule, (60 FR 41821; August 14, 1996) on 
``Customer-Owned Service Lines,'' which addressed buried pipelines from 
the outlet of the meter to the customer building, consistent with a 
Congressional directive. In addition, OPS is completing a 
Congressionally directed study of these lines to determine if further 
action is warranted.
    P-90-20: Require, by time certain, that unprotected gas piping be 
protected against corrosion or be replaced.
    OPS believes that a realistic cast iron pipe and ductile iron pipe 
replacement program should be conducted on a risk basis, recognizing 
the various pipeline characteristics and risks to public safety, and 
that replacement should be based on need rather than on an arbitrary 
date.
    P-93-9: Develop safety requirements for underground highly volatile 
liquids and natural gas storage facilities.
    Based on safety practices recommended by the Interstate Oil and Gas 
Compact Commission and the American Petroleum Institute on standards 
for underground storage, OPS has recommended that the states and 
storage operators take individual action, as necessary, based on local 
geologic and hydrologic conditions.
    P-96-2: Require gas-distribution operators to notify all customers 
when excess flow valves are available.
    OPS published a Final Rule (63 FR 5464; February 3, 1998), titled 
``Excess Flow Valves (EFV)--Customer Notification.'' The final rule 
requires operators of natural gas distribution systems to notify 
certain customers in writing of the availability of EFV's that meet 
DOT-prescribed performance standards, the safety benefits of the 
valves, and the costs of installation. If a customer requests 
installation and pays the costs of installation, the operator is 
required to install an EFV.
Enhancing Pipeline Accident Databases
    P-96-1: Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for collecting 
and using gas and hazardous liquid pipeline accident data.
    RSPA recognizes the need for a comprehensive plan for identifying 
and obtaining adequate gas and hazardous liquid data to support our 
pipeline risk management demonstration program development. A 
comprehensive data plan was submitted to NTSB in February, 1998. The 
plan details how RSPA is analyzing current database capabilities and 
working to improve its collection and use of gas and hazardous liquid 
pipeline accident data. Cooperation with industry groups such as the 
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), the Gas Research 
Institute (GRI), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the 
Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL) is the cornerstone of RSPA's effort 
to identify and obtain needed data. RSPA is currently working with 
these industry groups and other industry representatives on joint 
Federal/industry teams to identify needed data. RSPA is supporting 
development of an electronic reporting system to collect this data 
directly from operators. The need for normalizing data previously 
unavailable for liquid pipeline issues is being evaluated. Adequacy of 
existing liquid pipeline accident is being considered. Work with the 
data teams will continue through Summer 1998. When the data team 
recommendations are complete, RSPA will pursue methods for obtaining 
and evaluating proposed data.
    RSPA continues to improve currently collected data by aggressively 
seeking supplemental reports for incident and accident data, 
identifying trends, and determining areas in which more data is needed. 
Additionally, RSPA is normalizing all databases and auditing historical 
data systems and reports. Performance metrics have been identified from 
existing data sources that will be used for the Government Performance 
and Results Act (GPRA) purposes. Existing data systems have been re-
engineered to make data more useful and accessible.
    In February, 1998 RSPA submitted a comprehensive plan that details 
efforts to collect, use, and normalize accident data to perform 
accident trend analyses and evaluations of pipeline operator 
performance.
Guidance on State Pipeline Safety Oversight
    P-97-6: Modify monitoring of State pipeline safety programs to 
ensure that the States are timely in monitoring the correction of 
identified safety deficiencies and to ensure that they implement 
enforcement action as necessary.
    RSPA monitors state programs to ensure that timely correction of 
safety deficiencies and appropriate enforcement action is taken. This 
policy was followed in Puerto Rico. We annually review our written 
guidance to the State programs and State evaluation criteria to confirm 
that appropriate emphasis is being given to these issues.
    P-97-8: Require that the San Juan Gas Company, Inc., take action 
necessary to ensure that abandoned pipelines are properly disconnected, 
purged of propane, and adequately secured to prevent the transmission 
of flammable vapors and gases, and to ensure that abandoned pipelines 
are properly identified on maps.
    San Juan Gas has submitted and received approval from the Puerto 
Rico Public Service Commission (PR PSC) to abandon approximately 90 
percent of the existing distribution system and to up-grade the 
remainder of the system. This program is underway and is being closely 
monitored by the PR PSC to ensure proper abandonment procedures are 
being followed.
    Question. Please prepare a table listing all current rulemakings, 
indicating the date the rulemaking was started, its current status, 
topic, expected completion date, and statutorily set deadline, if any.
    Answer. The following chart describes all outstanding pipeline 
safety rulemakings. See notes at bottom of the chart for identification 
of priority rulemakings, rulemakings in response to the Pipeline Safety 
Act of 1992, and rulemakings in response to the Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative (RRI).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Scheduled
           Docket No.                           Title                        Current phase            completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS-941 \1\ \3\..................  Qualification of pipeline         Negotiated rulemaking                  05/98
                                   Personnel.                        completed; NPRM will be
                                                                     published.
PS-101A \3\.....................  Mandatory Participation in        Final Rule published...........        11/97
                                   Qualified One-Call Systems by
                                   Pipeline Operators.
PS-102..........................  Control of Drug Use and Alcohol   Direct Final Rule published....        12/97
                                   Misuse in Natural Gas,
                                   Liquefied Natural Gas, and
                                   Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
                                   Operations.
PS-117..........................  Hazardous Liquid Pipelines        NPRM published 2/98; Final Rule        12/98
                                   Operated at 20 percent or Less    being prepared.
                                   of Specified Minimum Yield
                                   Strength.
PS-118 \1\ \3\..................  Excess Flow Valve (EFV) Customer  Final Rule published...........        02/98
                                   Notification.
PS-121..........................  Pressure Testing of Older         Response to Petition for               02/98
                                   Hazardous Liquid Pipelines.       Reconsideration published.
PS-122..........................  Gas Gathering Line Definition...  Supplemental NPRM being            \3\ 10/98
                                                                     prepared.
PS-124 \2\ \3\..................  Further Regulatory Review; Gas    NPRM being prepared............        06/98
                                   Pipeline Safety Standards.
PS-126..........................  Passage of Instrumented Internal  Response to Petitions for              07/98
                                   Inspection Devices.               Reconsideration being prepared.
PS-128..........................  Drug and Alcohol Testing:         NPRM being prepared............        03/98
                                   Substance Abuse Professional
                                   Evaluation for Drug Use.
PS-130..........................  Response Plans for Onshore Oil    Interim Final Rule published 1/        01/99
                                   Pipelines.                        93; change in filing period
                                                                     published 3/98; Final rule
                                                                     being prepared.
PS-133 \1\......................  Emergency Flow Restricting        NPRM on leak detection being           12/98
                                   Devices (EFRD's).                 prepared; further action will
                                                                     follow.
PS-140 \1\......................  Areas Unusually Sensitive to      Public meetings underway; NPRM     \3\ 06/99
                                   Environmental Damage (USA's).     to follow.
PS-141 \1\......................  Increased Inspection              Public input being sought; NPRM        12/98
                                   Requirements.                     to follow.
PS-144..........................  Risk-based Alternative to         NPRM published.................        02/98
                                   Pressure Testing Rule.
PS-153..........................  Pipeline Safety: Metrication....  Final rule being prepared......        08/98
RSPA-97-2094 \1\................  Underwater Abandoned Pipeline     NPRM being prepared............        06/98
                                   Facilities.
RSPA-97-2095....................  Pipeline Safety: Adoption of      NPRM being prepared............        04/98
                                   Industry Standards for Breakout
                                   Tanks.
RSPA-97-2096....................  Pipeline Safety: Regulations      Direct Final Rule published....        11/97
                                   Implementing Memorandum of
                                   Understanding with the Dept. of
                                   the Interior.
RSPA-97-2251 \2\................  Periodic Updates to Pipeline      Direct Final Rule published....        01/98
                                   Safety Regulations (1997).
RSPA-97-3001 \1\................  Periodic Underwater Inspections.  Study being conducted; public          10/98
                                                                     meeting and NPRM may follow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requirement of Pipeline Safety Act of 1992.
\2\ Response to Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
\3\ `Priority' Rulemakings.

    Question. Please prepare a table listing all rulemakings that you 
are considering to initiate and the expected date of ANPRM or NPRM.
    Answer. The table provided in response to the preceding question 
includes rulemaking activities that are set to be completed or 
initiated through 1999. In addition, a request for comments on proposed 
revisions to the hazardous liquid pipeline (Part 195) regulations based 
on suggestions from the National Association of Pipeline Safety 
Representatives (NAPSR) will soon be published in the Federal Register. 
After considering the comments from the public, a proposed rule may be 
forthcoming. RSPA plans to hold additional public meetings on 
corrosion, plastic pipe, and liquefied natural gas that could lead to 
proposed rules.
    Question. Please update last years response to the question 
regarding the major recommendations or key findings resulting from the 
pipeline safety summit.
    Answer. RSPA's responses to each of the key findings resulting from 
the National Pipeline Safety Summit in Newark, NJ on June 20, 1994 are 
as follows:
    Finding 1.--The need for partnerships between pipeline operators, 
regulators and the public (i.e. local officials, potential impacted 
residents).
    Solutions/Directions: RSPA maintains a number of initiatives in its 
pipeline safety regulatory program to foster cooperation, collaboration 
and partnerships with the pipeline industry and the public. Past 
initiatives included partnerships with the New Jersey Institute of 
Technology (NJIT), the Gas Research Institute and a research consortium 
of Battelle Memorial Institute, Iowa State University, Southwest 
Research Institute. We have conducted outreach efforts in Houston, 
Dallas and Denver to obtain local public participation in regulatory 
reform. We have held public workshops on placement of emergency valves, 
leak detection systems, increased inspection by smart pigs, the 
definition for unusually environmentally sensitive areas, standards for 
corrosion control and use of plastic materials, standards for liquefied 
natural gas and a risk-based alternative to hydrotesting hazardous 
liquid pipelines. We used the regulatory negotiation process to develop 
standards for operator qualification. In the past, RSPA led joint 
government/industry quality teams to develop guidelines on formulating 
risk management programs which would be used as alternatives to the 
present prescriptive federal regulations. We are still using the 
quality team approach to develop solutions to our national pipeline 
mapping requirements. We also use the quality team approach for 
designing and testing our national damage prevention campaign. Other 
government/industry workgroups are now focusing on data improvement 
plans and building a framework to guide cost/benefit analyses. Quality 
teams are composed of representatives of industry, other federal 
agencies, state agencies, and the public.
    Finding 2.--Minimizing of Third Party Damage with An Enhanced One-
Call System.
    Solutions/Directions: RSPA issued a final rule (62 FR 61695) 
requiring that operators of onshore gas, hazardous liquid and carbon 
dioxide pipelines participate in qualified one-call systems as part of 
the required excavation damage prevention programs. In addition, RSPA 
supports one-call legislation at the Federal and state levels, 
including Title XI (Underground Damage Prevention) in the proposed 
NEXTEA legislation, and the recent legislation passed in the Senate. 
Our damage prevention team progress is addressing national educational 
requirements.
    Finding 3.--Improved monitoring techniques to reduce potential pipe 
failures.
    Solutions/Directions: RSPA, in collaboration with Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (ARPA), Department of Defense, is working with the 
consortium of OCA Applied Optics and Los Alamos Science Inc. to develop 
a diagnostic tool using laser technology which can be strapped on an 
aircraft to identify gas and hazardous liquid leaks from pipelines. In 
addition, RSPA is in its third year of a study in cooperation with the 
Gas Research Institute to advance the state-of-the-art of smart pig 
technology to assess pipe walls for mechanical damage and to assess the 
existence of stress corrosion cracking which could lead to failure.
    Finding 4.--Need for a centralized comprehensive database related 
to accidents and incidents in the pipeline industry.
    Solutions/Directions: RSPA and the natural gas and hazardous liquid 
industry have been assessing the accident, incident and annual data 
which RSPA has been collecting for over 25 years to determine how it 
can be used in risk assessment, to identify gaps in the data and what 
additional data is necessary. RSPA is working with the API to pilot 
test the voluntary collection of data on all leaks, regardless of 
reporting threshold on all lines, whether or not they are regulated. 
New emphasis is being placed on being able to diagnose, address and 
monitor safety issues at the early stages. In addition, RSPA is 
developing, through a GIS system, the ability to depict the geographic 
location of pipelines in relation to areas of high-density population, 
environmental sensitivity, water intakes and other areas of importance. 
This data is needed to assess pipeline systems in determining 
appropriate responses to identified risks, including the decisions of 
land use officials, and emergency and environmental planners and 
responders.
    Finding 5.--The pipeline transport industry is safer than other 
means of transport (e.g., truck, rail) of natural gas or hazardous 
liquids.
    Solutions/Directions: RSPA will continue to articulate the safety 
of the pipeline mode of transportation through initiatives leading to 
more openness with our stakeholders and customers and closer 
cooperation and collaboration with each group. The new emphasis on 
developing regulations using risk-based principles will enable the 
pipeline industry to commit its limited resources to those areas of 
highest risk to maintain and improve on the already high level of 
safety in the industry.
                              volpe center
    Question. For fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, what percent 
of funds were contracted out? For fiscal year 1998 what percent of 
funds do you plan to contract out?
    Answer. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997 about 74 percent and 76 
percent percent, respectively, of the Center's obligations were 
contracted to the private and university sectors. The percentage is 
expected to remain stable for fiscal year 1998.
    Question. What percent of your personnel costs are for contract 
administration, technical program direction, and in-house research?
    Answer. About 3 percent of personnel costs is for contract 
administration. About 73 percent is tied to specific technical project 
work, including both technical direction and technical performance. No 
funds or staff were devoted to in-house research (i.e. independent 
research and development not tied to a client project) in fiscal year 
1997 and none is planned for fiscal year 1998-99. The remaining 24 
percent of personnel costs covers facility operations and all other 
Center administrative and management services.
    Question. Since the total Departmental R&T budget has increased 
substantially, especially during the last three years, is it time to 
raise the FTP and FTE ceiling at the Center?
    Answer. Since the Volpe Center relies 100 percent on funding from 
voluntary customers, it in effect manages to budget. The Center must 
add Federal managerial and technical value to every project it accepts, 
and it balances its use of Federal staff and contractor staff 
accordingly. Under NPR, the Center has since fiscal year 1993 been 
particularly successful in reducing Federal administrative positions, 
so that FTE and FTP reductions have been achieved without proportional 
reductions to its managerial and technical capabilities. FTP and FTE 
ceilings are not anticipated to be a constraint on sound Center 
management in fiscal year 1999.
    Question. What have you done to stop ``pass throughs'' to the Volpe 
Center? How is your new policy working?
    Answer. Neither the Volpe Center Working Capital Fund nor RSPA work 
acceptance policy permits the Center to accept funds earmarked by the 
customer for a specific contractor, commonly known as ``pass-
throughs.'' The responsibility for the selection, technical direction, 
and performance of all Volpe Center contracts rests with the Volpe 
Center (except for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 
Program in which the funding agency usually provides the technical team 
to select and oversee the contracts.) In fiscal year 1997 less than 3 
percent of the Center's contract obligations were sole-sourced.
    The work acceptance policy (Volpe Order 5000.4A) requires that 
documentation be prepared showing that the new funds are accepted only 
for work that meets four criteria which, when taken together, ensure 
that there are no ``pass-throughs'' and that the work is appropriate 
for the Center. The criteria are: (1) That the proposed work conforms 
to the Center's working capital fund statute. (2) The work supports the 
current transportation enterprise and its future development. (3) The 
Volpe Center adds value. And (4) Programmatic and/or institutional 
risks are manageable.
    This policy is working well. It has been in place for over three 
years and is being applied to all projects.
    Question. Please break out, in tabular form, obligations by each of 
the DOT modal administrations to the Volpe Center for each of the last 
three years. What is the significance of these funding trends?
    Answer. The following table shows obligations of DOT Modal 
Administrations to the Volpe Center in millions of dollars.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                                        --------------------------------
                                                                  1998
                                            1996       1997      (est.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA....................................       86.5       85.1       85.6
FHWA...................................       10.0       13.9       14.0
USCG...................................        5.3        7.4        7.5
FRA....................................        9.5        9.6       11.6
FTA....................................        4.8        4.8        7.8
NHTSA..................................        7.9        8.5        8.7
RSPA...................................        4.2        6.4        6.7
Other DOT..............................        2.8        2.5        2.2
OST....................................        1.5        1.0        0.6
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................      132.7      139.2      144.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Each amount includes that customer's participation in DOT's SBIR
  program, which the Volpe Center manages.

    The trends generally reflect and changes in our customers program 
emphasis or (as in the case of SBIR) changes to the DOT's 
appropriations.
    Question. When was the last time that Volpe conducted customer 
surveys? What were the results?
    Answer. All Volpe Center DOT customers, as well as a sample of non-
DOT customers, participated in our first round of structured customer 
satisfaction interviews in 1995 and 1996. The summary results, based on 
interviews with 219 customers' project managers and 62 senior-level 
customers, are shown as follows. More detailed results were reported to 
all customers in a report, ``Round 1 Executive Summary of the Customer 
Satisfaction Monitoring Initiative,'' October, 1996. The Volpe Center 
plans to initiate its second round of customer satisfaction monitoring 
during the spring of 1998.
    The overall customer satisfaction rating is on a scale of 0 to 10 
where 10 equals extremely satisfied.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Interviews (percent)--
                                               -------------------------
              Satisfaction rating                 Project-     Senior-
                                                   level        level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10............................................            7  ...........
9.............................................           22           23
8.............................................           40           43
7.............................................           19           17
6.............................................            7            7
5.............................................            1            7
4.............................................            2  ...........
3.............................................            2            3
<3............................................  ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please prepare a table showing the percent of the Volpe 
work that has been conducted for non-DOT agencies for each of the last 
four years.
    Answer. The following table shows Volpe Center Obligations for Non-
DOT Agencies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year (percent)--
                             -------------------------------------------
                                                                  1998
                                 1995       1996       1997      (est.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD.........................         12         12         12         12
Other Non-DOT...............         15         16         20         18
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................         27         28         32         30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What are the Volpe overhead charges and how have you 
tried to reduce these charges? Please provide a detailed explanation 
and dollar figures of all overhead costs for each of the last three 
fiscal years.
    Answer. Following is the distribution of the Center's indirect 
expenses:

                   [In millions of dollars obligated]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                                        --------------------------------
           Indirect activity                                      1998
                                            1996       1997      (est.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Operations....................        4.0        4.5        4.5
Business Services......................        7.6        8.3        7.7
Line Management........................        2.3        2.5        2.5
Center-wide Services...................        0.9        1.2        1.4
Computer & LAN Services................        3.8    \1\ 2.3        3.8
Industry Outreach......................         .3        0.4        0.7
Capability Development.................         .3         .3         .8
Plans & Pgm Development................        1.1         .8         .7
Chief Counsel..........................         .4         .6         .5
Executive Management...................         .8         .6         .6
                                        --------------------------------
      Total Indirect...................       21.5       21.5       23.1
      Total Obligations \2\............      186.1      204.3      205.0
Indirect to Total (percent)............       11.6       10.5       11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes deferred expenses of $1.3 million. In fiscal year 1997 the
  Center began to depreciate capital investments in accordance with OIG
  recommendations. If not deferred, the fiscal year 1997 Total Indirect
  would have been $22.8 million and fiscal year 1998 would be estimated
  at about the same as fiscal year 1997.
\2\ Net of recoveries of prior year obligations.

    The estimated fiscal year 1998 indirect expenses reflect increases 
for salaries, benefits, negotiated contract price adjustments and other 
normal cost growth plus an amount for depreciation of prior year 
capital investments. Increases have been partially offset by continuing 
cost reduction efforts with major emphasis on process simplification, 
improved automation and introducing current energy conservation 
technology.
    Question. Please provide a detailed listing of all fiscal year 1998 
new start reimbursable agreements that the Volpe Center has with other 
Federal agencies. Include all costs that are paid out to contractors 
hired by the Volpe Center.
    Answer. Through six months of fiscal year 1998 there has been one 
new start with other Federal agencies totaling $100,000. It is 
identified as follows:
    Project: Restructure the configuration data received with the new 
Coast Guard Polar Research Vessel (CGC Healy) from the Navy's Real-time 
Outfitting Management System (ROMIS) format to the USCG's CMPlus data 
format. CMPlus was developed, and is being implemented, by the Volpe 
Center for the USCG; customer, Navy; funding, $100,000; and planned 
contract, 80 percent.
    Question. The Committee has been concerned that almost all of the 
funds provided for RSPA's research and technology activities were being 
allocated to the Volpe Center or to the Transportation Research Board. 
Please provide quantitative evidence that you have expanded the 
universe of companies and institutions participating in your contract 
program.
    Answer. RSPA allocated funding in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to the 
following organizations or contractors to assist RSPA in supporting the 
strategic planning process for Federal transportation R&D, the 
Department's Technology Transfer program, and to maintain the 
Department's membership on various roundtables and conferences:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year--
                Activity                 -------------------------------
                                               1997            1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic planning:
    Volpe Center........................        $825,000        $525,000
    National Research Council/                   150,000         100,000
     Transportation Research Board (TRB)
    Civil Engineering Research            ..............          50,000
     Foundation.........................
    TRB (Simultaneous Vehicle             ..............          50,000
     Infrastructure Design Workshop)....
Research and technology coordination and
 partnerships:
    Volpe Center........................         795,000         650,000
    TRB (Annual Fee)....................          50,000          50,000
    National Academy of Sciences                 125,000         125,000
     Government-University-Industry
     Research Roundtable................
    To be determined (Tech Transfer/R&D           40,000         150,000
     Tracking)..........................
    Critical Technologies Institute.....  ..............          75,000
Intermodal and multi-modal research and
 education:
    Volpe Center........................         195,000         200,000
    Small Business Innovation Research            57,775         100,000
     Program............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


              St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
      Prepared Statement of David G. Sanders, Acting Administrator
    On March 4, 1996, as part of the Administration's reinventing 
government agenda, Vice President Gore announced plans to restructure 
eight federal agencies as Performance Based Organizations (PBO). The 
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is one of the eight 
agencies chosen for the conversion to a PBO.
    The central element of the PBO initiative is greater accountability 
through enhanced performance. To encourage performance, the PBO plan 
includes greater management flexibilities and financial incentives, but 
also greater risks for non-performance, e.g., lower payments, or 
termination of the Chief Operating Officer (COO). The SLSDC has been 
required to develop a five-year plan that commits the agency to meet 
certain personnel and fiscal goals. Part of that commitment is the 
assurance that if the goals are met, the agency will be compensated 
accordingly.
    The most significant changes derived from the PBO structure include 
an accountable senior management structure working under a performance 
contract, clear incentives to improve efficiencies and service to 
increase Seaway utilization, a more stable funding source, and 
increased autonomy from day-to-day Departmental activities. The result 
will be improved long range planning for critical capital needs of the 
aging lock facilities, build-up of emergency reserves, streamlining and 
reallocation of personnel resources, and reduced operating costs. The 
focus on the performance areas of safety, reliability, trade 
development, and management accountability will ensure a more efficient 
operation through elimination of programs and cost areas that do not 
fully support performance goals. SLSDC estimates a cost savings in 
excess of half a million dollars over the initial five-year program 
period.
    SLSDC progress with the conversion process is as follows:
  --The initial legislation to implement the PBO conversion was 
        transmitted to the Congress on July 15, 1996. The House/Senate 
        Conference Committee directed the GAO to submit a report 
        evaluating the PBO concept, with specific emphasis on the SLSDC 
        initiative.
  --The NPR/OMB/OPM/GSA and other agencies developed a ``Template PBO 
        Bill'' during late 1996/early 1997. The SLSDC legislation was 
        revised accordingly and submitted to the Congress on May 5, 
        1997.
  --The GAO report was submitted to the Congress on May 15, 1997, as 
        directed. The report conclusion raised issues of concern but 
        also stated that ``If Congress is interested in testing the PBO 
        concept, SLSDC could be a low-risk pilot because it has a small 
        budget, businesslike operations, and already has some 
        flexibilities that would be available to a PBO.''
  --The Appropriations Conference Committee funded the Corporation, 
        under current law, at the requested PBO plan level for fiscal 
        year 1998.
  --The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes the SLSDC/PBO as a 
        mandatory program.
                    fiscal year 1999 budget estimate
    As a PBO, the SLSDC will be funded, beginning in fiscal year 1999, 
by an annual automatic payment (fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 
2003) from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). The payment will 
be a dollar amount equal to the five-year average of U.S. international 
metric tonnage moved through the Seaway, adjusted by a factor of 1.076, 
and adjusted for inflation by the percentage difference between, the 
Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the first 
quarter of calendar year 1996, and the CPI-U for the first quarter of 
the calendar year in which an annual payment is determined. The 
Corporation will have flexibility to use the funds and other resources 
to meet the performance targets in the Chief Operating Officer (COO) 
contract.
    Due to the PBO proposal, SLSDC is not making an appropriation 
request. Financing is proposed to be derived from an automatic annual 
payment from the HMTF. The attached fiscal year 1999 spending plan is a 
budget estimate based on the PBO proposal which includes an automatic 
annual payment for fiscal year 1999 of $12,646,000 from the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund, of which $11,737,000 will be used to fund 
operations and maintenance. The PBO financial plan also establishes a 
commitment to make annual contributions to the Corporation's reserve 
account, assuming funds are available. The balance of $909,000 from the 
HMTF, as well as offsetting collections estimated at $900,000, will be 
contributed to the reserve in accordance with this commitment. Capital 
improvements of $1,040,000 planned for fiscal year 1999 will be funded 
by the reserve.
                    1997 navigation season overview
    On April 2, the St. Lawrence Seaway was opened for the 1997 
navigation season and its 39th year of operation as a deep draft 
waterway. Opening ceremonies were held at Eisenhower Lock in Massena, 
and at St. Lambert Lock in Montreal.
    Total tonnage through the Montreal/Lake Ontario section of the 
Seaway in CY 1997 was 36.9 million tons, 3 percent (1.2 million tons) 
below the CY 1996 total. CY 1997 vessel transits increased over CY 1996 
by 4 percent (102 transits) to a total 2,809 transits for the season. 
Seaway total grain tonnage increased 10 percent over 1996 due to a 
significant Canadian grain movement that reflected a recovery from the 
past two seasons with drought problems and as new markets were 
developed to replace the significant exports to Russia from previous 
years. U.S. export grains through the Seaway were down 23 percent due 
to a combination of factors: lower Mississippi River barge rates, 
weaker overseas demand, a strong U.S. dollar, and, for the second year, 
depleted elevator stocks in the Great Lakes at the beginning of the 
season delayed movement until the Fall harvest period.
    Despite less demand for import iron and steel due to a flat 
automobile market, and domestic mills operating at capacity, iron and 
steel tonnage reached 3.9 million tons, which was slightly below the 
1996 level. Iron ore tonnage was down by 13 percent reflecting higher 
inventories at season opening and some shifting of ore mine sources 
from Canada to the upper lakes by U.S. steel mills.
             1997 accomplishments by pbo performance areas
Safety
    Ocean Vessel Incidents.--The 1997 navigation season was the fifth 
consecutive shipping year with no vessel incidents in excess of $50,000 
in damages. All other ocean vessel incidents were reduced by 62 percent 
from 1996.
    Ocean Vessel Inspections.--The Corporation and the USCG in 
conjunction with Transport Canada and the Canadian Seaway Authority, 
signed a memorandum of understanding March 27 to develop a program of 
coordinated vessel inspection and enforcement activities to expedite 
the safe transit of shipping through the Seaway and the Great Lakes. 
The basic goals that affect ocean vessels are: clear all vessels in 
Montreal before they enter U.S. waters; conduct no inspection boardings 
while a vessel is underway except when it is clearly agreed to by all 
concerned that the boarding will not interfere with safe navigation of 
the vessel; minimize the number of vessels that require more than one 
port state control boarding during a navigation season; and ensure that 
international shipping throughout the System continues to meet the 
highest standards of safety and environmental protection. The 1997 
pilot project for vessel inspections resulted in 100 percent of all 
ocean vessels being inspected in Montreal on their first transit 
inbound, prior to entering U.S. waters, compared with 38 percent in 
1996.
Long and Short-Term Reliability
    System Availability.--The Corporation achieved a 97 percent 
availability factor for 1997 based on navigation days open, versus 
downtime for all causes, including weather conditions.
    The Montreal/Lake Ontario section of the St. Lawrence Seaway was 
open for 269 days (April 2 through December 26).
Trade Development
    Domestic Trade Mission.--The SLSDC completed a first-of-its-kind 
domestic trade mission throughout the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence 
Seaway beginning August 11 at the lakehead port of Duluth MN and ending 
at the St. Lawrence River port of Ogdensburg NY on August 22. Events 
were conducted at fifteen ports throughout the System. The program 
objectives were to involve and inform lake port communities about 
Seaway trade development programs and initiatives; and to showcase the 
unique maritime assets at each of the port sites participating in the 
program.
    Cruise Shipping Returns to the System.--The ``C. COLUMBUS,'' a 472-
foot German-owned passenger vessel made its maiden voyage through the 
Seaway, the first such transit of a foreign flag passenger ocean liner 
since 1975. The ``C. COLUMBUS'' arrived in Montreal on September 17 and 
departed with over 400 passengers and 169 crewmembers, for a 19-day 
cruise through the System from Montreal to Chicago. The vessel was 
built in 1997, at the Mathisa-Thesen-Werft Wismar shipyard in Wismar, 
Germany for the Hapag Lloyd Cruise Ship Management Company of Hamburg, 
Germany. This construction represents the growing interest in the 
building of Seaway-sized vessels and a rebirth of foreign flag cruise 
lines offering passenger excursions through the Seaway system.
    Overseas System Trade Mission.--The SLSDC led a Seaway System 
binational delegation that included industry, port, and carrier 
partners participating at program stops in Hamburg, Germany, and 
Johannesburg and Durban, South Africa. Traditionally, Germany ranks in 
the top five Seaway trading partners with just under one million tons 
of traffic in 1996, representing over eight percent of total overseas 
traffic through the Seaway. Presentations were made to local government 
and industry officials, followed by one-on-one meetings with business 
partners and delegation members. Hamburg is also one of the major home 
office locations for vessel owners and operators based in Northern 
Europe. The mission visit to South Africa was an industry requested 
follow-up to a 1994 Seaway mission, which was one of the first U.S. 
government sponsored missions to post-apartheid South Africa. South 
African trade through the Seaway was eleventh overall in 1996 with over 
340,000 tons of cargo and ranking at three percent of total overseas 
trade through the System. In addition to the traditional program 
presentations and individual meetings, the SLSDC participated in the 
annual South African International Trade Exposition. Similar exhibits 
by Great Lakes Port and Seaway vessel operators accompanied the SLSDC 
international static exhibit. At the Hamburg stop, Polish Ocean Lines 
announced plans to construct five new Seaway maximum size vessels for 
service between Europe and the Seaway/Great Lakes ports. At the South 
African stop, Christensen Canadian African Lines announced the addition 
of a fourth vessel to supplement existing operations between South 
African ports and the Seaway and the opening of a Chicago office.
Management Accountability, Including Customer Service, Fiscal 
        Performance and Cost Effectiveness
    Fiscal Year 1997 Financial Audit.--The SLSDC maintained its 
historical record of achieving an unqualified acceptance (clean) annual 
external audit rating for fiscal year 1997.
    Year 2000 Data Systems Compliance.--The Corporation management 
information staff have certified year 2000 compliance for one non-
critical, and ten critical mission systems effective March 30, 1998. 
This completes Year 2000 certified compliance for all SLSDC data 
systems.
    Union Contract.--SLSDC successfully concluded negotiations with 
AFGE Local 1968, Massena, NY. The three-year agreement includes the 
first major rewrite of the union contract and a wage level increase on 
a par with industry contracts prevailing in the Massena area. No issues 
went to mediation or impasse.
    DOT 30th Anniversary Event in Massena, NY.--In an effort to better 
connect the Massena community with the Corporation and the Department, 
the SLSDC planned a final day of activities to wrap-up the DOT 30th 
Anniversary events for the year. Secretary Slater was invited and 
participated in the following events:
  --Christening of a new SLSDC workboat, PERFORMANCE, which honors 
        DOT's emphasis on job performance, and relates to the SLSDC 
        Performance Based Organization initiative. The christening and 
        a press conference were held at the Corporation maintenance and 
        marine base facility.
  --Dedication of a memorial anchor display honoring Native American, 
        William Mitchell, an SLSDC employee who drowned while on duty 
        in 1983. The dedication took place at Eisenhower Lock.
  --The Secretary toured the Lock traffic control center and viewed a 
        land side demonstration of the SLSDC's Automated Identification 
        System (AIS) by Corporation and Volpe Center staff members. The 
        demonstration tracked the movements of the just christened 
        workboat and the Corporation tug, Robinson Bay.
  --The last event was a significant multi-purpose Massena community 
        activity held at the Jefferson Elementary School. The program 
        included dedication of a new playground for the school that was 
        constructed by SLSDC employees; presentations by the students 
        to the Secretary and the SLSDC; and acknowledgment of surplus 
        computer equipment furnished to the school by the Corporation, 
        which has designated Jefferson Elementary as its ``adopted'' 
        school.
    Garrett A. Morgan Initiative.--In addition to the Adopt-a-School 
program with Jefferson Elementary School in Massena, NY, SLSDC staff in 
Massena have launched a new partnering effort with the Tech Prep/
School-to-Work-Initiative with Massena Central High School and Clarkson 
University School of Business, to prepare high school juniors and 
seniors for post school employment. SLSDC provides ``shadowing'' 
opportunities for students at Corporation facilities and SLSDC will 
also be donating surplus computer equipment to the program. A new 
partnership between the Tech Prep Program and the Garrett A. Morgan 
Transportation and Technology Futures Program will focus on preparing 
students for transportation careers.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
            performance based organization (pbo) initiative
    Question. On page 1 of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation's fiscal year 1999 budget estimate, under ``general 
statement'', the following statement is included: ``The President's 
budget for fiscal year 1999 funds the SLSDC at the fiscal year 1999 PBO 
level as a mandatory program and identifies a budget offset.'' What is 
the budget offset?
    Answer. The President's Budget is PAYGO neutral at the aggregate 
level. Specific offsets are not associated with specific mandatory 
spending increases.
    Question. What legislative action is necessary to provide this 
identified offset?
    Answer. None, other than implementation of the President's budget.
    Question. Please update the Committee on any legislative actions 
taken by either the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
or by the Senate Commerce Committee toward moving the performance based 
organization legislation in the 105th Congress.
    Answer. There has been no legislative action by either Committee to 
date.
    Question. Please update the table on page 1038 of Senate Hearing 
105-429, comparing the enacted appropriated funding level for the SLSDC 
to the amount the PBO formula would have provided to the Corporation 
(in constant 1998 dollars), using actual tonnage figures for each year.
    Answer. The information follows.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       PBO 1988
                                                                               HMTF                      Base
                         Fiscal Year                            Enacted     Enacted In  PBO Formula   forward in
                                                              HMTF Actual      1998        Actual        1998
                                                                             Constant                  Constant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988........................................................       10,806       10,806       12,788       12,788
1989........................................................       11,097       11,303       12,755       13,376
1990........................................................       11,375       11,993       13,327       14,192
1991........................................................       10,250       12,364       13,447       14,632
1992........................................................       10,550       12,723       13,513       15,056
1993........................................................       10,734       13,066       10,502       15,463
1994........................................................       10,765       13,419       10,439       15,881
1995........................................................       10,193       13,755       10,263       16,278
1996........................................................        9,549       14,209       10,568       16,815
1997........................................................       10,322       14,450       11,560       17,101
1998........................................................       11,193       14,631       11,524       17,314
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           navigation season
    Question. Please update the table on page 1039 of Senate Hearing 
105-429 concerning the dates of the navigation seasons from calendar 
years 1993 through 1997, and the opening date for 1998.
    Answer. The Information follows.

                             MONTREAL-LAKE ONTARIO SECTION OPENING AND CLOSING DATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Navigation
         Navigation Season                     Opening Date                    Closing Date              Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993...............................  March 30.......................  December 26...................         272
1994...............................  April 05.......................  December 29...................         269
1995...............................  March 24.......................  December 28...................         280
1996...............................  March 29.......................  December 27...................         274
1997...............................  April 02.......................  December 26...................         269
1998...............................  March 26.......................  ..............................  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       advisory board membership
    Question. Please list all the current members of the Seaway 
Advisory Board. Provide each Board member's term dates and a brief 
description of their employment background and qualifications.
    Answer. Currently the term dates for Advisory Board members are at 
the pleasure of the President.
    Anthony S. Earl--appointed October 3, 1994. Mr. Earl has been a 
Partner, in the Quarles and Brady Law Firm since 1987 and was Governor 
of the State of Wisconsin from January 1983 to December 1986. Other 
positions include: Assistant District Attorney, Marathon County, WI 
1965; City Attorney, Wausau, WI, 1966-1969; Member WI State 
Legislature, 1969-1974; Secretary, WI Department of Administration, 
1975; and Secretary WI Department of Natural Resources, 1976-1980.
    Vincent J. Sorrentino--appointed October 3, 1994. Mr. Sorrentino 
has been a Senior Partner of Cole, Sorrentino, Hurley and Hewner, P.C. 
since 1964. Other positions include: 1988 to the present, Commissioner 
of the Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Authority and Town Attorney and/or 
Deputy Town Attorney for Hamburg, NY; since 1989 to the present, 
Commissioner of the Erie County Water Authority; and 1991 to the 
present, Treasurer of the Erie County Water Authority.
    Jay C. Ehle--appointed August 14, 1995. Mr. Ehle joined Cleveland 
Builders Supply in 1938 and retired as President and Chairman in 1985, 
remaining on the Board of Directors until 1989. He served on the Board 
of the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Port Authority for nineteen years, 
eleven years as Chairman, and later as a special consultant to the 
Board.
    George D. Milidrag--appointed December 26, 1995. Mr. Milidrag is 
the Chairman and owner of Engineering Technology, Ltd., an engineering 
and design firm which he founded in 1973. Mr. Milidrag served as a 
Director of Midwest Guaranty Bank. He was honored in 1993 as Commodore 
of the United States Naval Institute and recently honored by the 
Society of Automotive Engineering as one of the Chief Executives of 100 
of the world's leading automotive industries.
    William L. Wilson--appointed June 11, 1996. Mr. Wilson is a 
Research Fellow at the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the 
University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Center in Minneapolis. 
From 1980 to 1993 he served as Council member (and as President from 
1989 to 1993) of the Saint Paul City Council. Mr. Wilson has previously 
served as Commissioner of the St. Paul Port Authority and serves 
currently as a member of the Board of Directors of the Minnesota World 
Trade Corporation.
                     harbor maintenance trust fund
    Question. Please update the table on page 1041 of Senate Report 
105-429 regarding harbor maintenance trust fund revenues, transfers, 
and year-end balances for fiscal years 1994 through 1997.
    Answer. The information that follows is the latest available from 
Treasury and the U.S. Customs service.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal year--
                             -------------------------------------------
                                 1994       1995       1996       1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning Balance...........   $303,277   $451,385   $621,194   $871,074
                             ===========================================
HMTax.......................    622,253    670,532    698,267    735,534
SLS Tolls...................     11,112        173  .........  .........
Interest....................     12,826     30,186     40,870     55,136
                             -------------------------------------------
      Net Rev...............    646,191    700,891    739,137    790,670
                             ===========================================
      Total Available.......    949,468  1,152,276  1,360,331  1,661,744
                             ===========================================
Corps of Engineers..........    476,620    519,196    482,126    535,987
SLSDC.......................     10,765     10,193      9,539     10,322
Toll Rebates................      9,546      1,512  .........  .........
U.S. DOT....................        175        181        169        193
Adm.Costs...................  .........  .........      3,000      3,000
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total Expenses........    497,106    531,082    494,834    549,502
                             ===========================================
      Year End Balance......    452,362    621,194    865,497  1,112,241
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All data is actual.

    Question. On March 31, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 
Harbor Maintenance Tax is unconstitutional. Does this ruling affect 
taxing all goods in transit--that is, imports, exports, domestic trade, 
and cruise ships?
    Answer. The ruling affects taxes levied on exports only.
    Question. Please break out the total amount of harbor maintenance 
trust fund revenues by category of tax receipt (imports, exports, 
domestic trade, cruise ships) for fiscal years 1995-1997.
    Answer. The latest information available is through fiscal year 
1997, which follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--
                Category                --------------------------------
                                            1995       1996       1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports................................   $418,858   $409,708   $438,395
Exports................................    214,821    209,217    209,439
Foreign trade Zone.....................     14,548     27,982     48,444
Domestic...............................     20,241     26,788     32,828
Passengers.............................      2,792      3,179      3,865
                                        --------------------------------
      Net Collections..................    671,260    676,874    732,971
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. At the end of fiscal year 1996, the harbor maintenance 
trust fund had a net balance (after expenditures) of $865.5 million. 
How will this Supreme Court ruling, which becomes final on April 27, 
1998, affect harbor maintenance trust fund balances? Please prepare a 
table showing end of fiscal year balances from 1995 through projected 
end of 2001, factoring in the loss of tax receipts. (It is understood 
that the revenue and expenditure costs for fiscal year 1998 through 
2001 must be estimated.)
    Answer. The information follows. Assumptions are based on actual 
and projected year end balances, less export receipts, estimated at an 
average 29 percent of total annual receipts.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Estimated Year
                                                                    Actual Year   Projected Year     End less
                                                                    End Balance     End Balance     Export Rec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
    1995........................................................         621,194  ..............  ..............
    1996........................................................         865,497  ..............  ..............
    1997........................................................       1,112,241  ..............  ..............
    1998........................................................  ..............       1,452,174       1,031,044
    1999........................................................  ..............       1,884,084       1,337,700
    2000........................................................  ..............       2,392,218       1,698,475
    2001........................................................  ..............       2,983,059       2,117,972
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Both the Corps of Engineers and the Saint Lawrence Seaway 
Development Corporation receive transfers of funds from the harbor 
maintenance trust fund. Is the transfer amount for each agency driven 
by the annual budget and appropriations cycle, or by an underlying 
statutory mechanism?
    Answer. The actual transfers for each agency are driven by the 
annual budget and appropriations cycle as authorized by statute.
    Question. Please summarize the Department of Transportation's legal 
opinion on the potential effect of this Supreme Court ruling on the 
availability of funds for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation.
    Answer. The Department's opinion is that the SLSDC's legal status 
remains unchanged. The Corporation will continue to receive 
appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
                           revenue available
    Question. Please update the table on page 1041 of last year's 
hearing record regarding revenue available by source in fiscal years 
1998 and 1999.
    Answer. The information follows.

    REVENUE AVAILABLE BY SOURCE FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal     Fiscal
                                                    year 1998  year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interest on Retained Earnings.....................   $500,000   $500,000
Concession Operation..............................    300,000    300,000
Rental of Administration Building.................     44,000     44,000
Miscellaneous.....................................     56,000     56,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           financial position
    Question. Please update the tables on pages 1041 through 1043 of 
last year's hearing record regarding the statement of your financial 
position, as well as the statement of operations and changes.
    Answer. The information follows.

 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, 1996 AND 1995
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 ASSETS                     1997       1996       1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current assets: Cash:
    Held by U.S. Treasury..............        910      1,573      2,631
    Held in banks and on hand..........         21         20         13
    Short-term time deposits in              9,289     10,908     10,403
     minority banks....................
    Tolls and other receivables........        150        131        138
    Other current assets...............  .........  .........          4
    Inventories........................        275        279        292
                                        --------------------------------
      TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS.............     10,645     12,911     13,481
                                        ================================
Non-current assets:
    Long-term time deposits in minority      3,237      1,470      1,207
     banks.............................
                                        ================================
Plant, property and equipment: Plant in    153,131    151,848    151,495
 service...............................
Less accum depreciation................    -66,152    -63,912    -62,250
Net plant in service...................     86,979     87,936     89,245
Work in progress.......................        454        302        162
                                        --------------------------------
      TOTAL PLANT, PROPERTY AND             87,433     88,238     89,407
       EQUIPMENT.......................
                                        ================================
Other assets:
    Lock spare parts...................        701        777        659
    Less accum depreciation............       -137       -109        -82
    Net Lock spare parts...............        564        668        577
    Investment in Seaway Int'l Bridge            7          7          7
     Corporation, Ltd..................
                                        --------------------------------
      TOTAL OTHER ASSETS...............        571        675        584
                                        ================================
Deferred charges: Workman's                  1,778      1,397      1,232
 compensation benefits.................
                                        ================================
      TOTAL ASSETS.....................    103,664    104,691    105,911
                                        ================================
   LIABILITIES AND EQUITY OF THE U.S.
               GOVERNMENT
 
Current liabilities: Payable to the
 U.S. Treasury:
    Accounts payable...................        807        691        743
    Accrued leave......................        706        691        691
    Accrued payroll costs..............        396        373        297
    Deferred revenue...................  .........  .........  .........
                                        --------------------------------
      Total current liabilities........      1,909      1,755      1,651
                                        ================================
Actuarial liabilities: Workman's             1,778      1,397      1,232
 compensation benefits.................
                                        ================================
      TOTAL LIABILITIES................      3,687      3,152      2,883
                                        ================================
Equity of the U.S. Government:
    Invested capital...................    102,228    103,053    104,230
    Cumulative results of operations...     -2,251     -1,514     -1,202
                                        --------------------------------
      TOTAL EQUITY OF THE U.S.              99,977    101,539    103,028
       GOVERNMENT......................
                                        ================================
      TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY OF      103,664    104,691    105,911
       THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE RESULTS FOR THE YEARS
                 ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, 1996 AND 1995
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 ASSETS                     1997       1996       1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating revenues:
    Appropriations expended............      8,736       8950      9,337
    Imputed financing..................        678  .........  .........
    Other..............................        558        897        467
                                        --------------------------------
      TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES.........      9,972      9,847      9,804
                                        ================================
Operating expenses:
    Locks and marine operations........      2,119      2,163      1,999
    Maintenance and engineering........      3,152      3,006      3,166
    General and development............      2,574      2,486      2,486
    Administrative expense.............      2,857      2,935      2,800
    Depreciation.......................      2,412      1,776      2,667
    Imputed expenses...................        678  .........  .........
                                        --------------------------------
      TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES.........     13,792     12,605     13,118
                                        ================================
Operating loss.........................     -3,820     -2,758     -3,314
Other financing sources:
    Interest on deposits in minority           671        670        553
     banks.............................
    Transfer from invested capital for       2,412      1,776      2,667
     depreciation......................
                                        --------------------------------
      TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES....      3,083      2,446      3,220
                                        ================================
Excess of operating revenues and other        -737       -312        -94
 financing sources over operating
 expenses..............................
Beginning cumulative results of             -1,514     -1,202     -1,108
 operations............................
                                        --------------------------------
      ENDING CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF          -2,251     -1,514     -1,202
       OPERATIONS......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           vessel casualties
    Question. Please detail any vessel casualties or groundings in the 
American waters of the Seaway for the 1997 navigation season, and for 
the 1998 navigation season to date.
    Answer. There was one grounding during 1997 in the American portion 
of the Seaway, a vessel had a steering problem, was holed, but did not 
spill or cause pollution. There have been no incidents in 1998 to date.
                    travel and transportation costs
    Question. In a similar format to that on pages 995 through 996 of 
the fiscal year 1997 Senate hearing record (Senate hearing 104-671, 
part 2), please provide a listing of trade, mini-trade, Lake State, 
industry, and other travel missions made by or planned for Seaway 
personnel September 1996 through April 1998 (fiscal years 1997 and 1998 
to date). Be inclusive, including the dates of travel, trip purposes, 
location, Seaway Development Corporation representatives, travel costs 
for each, and actual or planned trip results.
    Answer. Seaway Domestic Trade Mission: August 11-22, 1997. The 
program objectives were to involve and inform lake port communities 
about Seaway trade development programs and initiatives; and to 
showcase the unique maritime assets at each of the ports participating 
in the program. Activities were conducted at the ports of Duluth, MN; 
Thunder Bay, Ontario; Sturgeon Bay, WI; Green Bay, WI; Milwaukee, WI; 
Chicago, IL; Burns Harbor, IN; Detroit, MI; Toledo, Cleveland, and 
Ashtabula OH; Erie, PA; Oswego and Ogdensburg, NY. SLSDC 
representatives and their travel costs included: Acting Administrator, 
David G. Sanders--$2,143; Ginger Vuich, Director Congressional and 
Public Affairs--$2,266; and Ron Rudolph, International Trade 
Specialist--$1,539. The program highlighted the Great Lakes/St. 
Lawrence Seaway's marine industry working in cooperation with the user 
communities of the ports served by the Seaway. Individual events 
emphasized U.S. trade development, maritime safety, environmental 
protection, new shipbuildings, binational cooperation, System unity and 
targeted commodity traffic needs and service enhancements.
    The First Universal Congress of the Panama Canal: September 7-10, 
1997. The trip purpose was to attend the Congress, and to conduct a 
separate Seaway trade development program for invitees to the Congress 
representing vessel owners and operators, freight forwarders and 
brokers, cargo interests and port authorities from the global maritime 
community. A third activity, sponsored by the Panama Canal Commission, 
was to participate in the third International Canals and Waterways 
Chief Executive Officer Meeting, a program initiated by the SLSDC in 
1993. Activities were carried out in Panama City and at the Canal 
facilities. SLSDC representatives and their travel costs included: 
Acting Administrator, David G. Sanders--$1,400; Ginger Vuich, Director 
Congressional and Public Affairs--$1,490; and Frank Flyntz, Director, 
Great Lakes Pilotage--$1,207. Program activities focussed on 
information exchange and presentations on Seaway trade, marine safety, 
environmental protection concerns, vessel operations and incentives, 
administrative issues, and general operating concerns pertinent to 
carriers, ports and waterway operators everywhere.
    Trade mission to Hamburg, Germany and Johannesburg and Durban, 
South Africa: October 13-29, 1997. The Acting Administrator was mission 
leader for a Seaway System binational delegation that included 
industry, port and carrier partners, participating at program stops in 
Hamburg, Germany, and Johannesburg and Durban, South Africa. 
Traditionally, Germany ranks in the top five Seaway trading partners 
with just under one million tons of traffic in 1996, representing over 
eight percent of total overseas traffic through the Seaway. 
Presentations were made to local government and industry officials, 
followed by one-on-one meetings with business partners and delegation 
members. Hamburg is also one of the major home office locations for 
vessel owners and operators based in Northern Europe. The mission visit 
to South Africa was an industry requested follow-up to a 1994 Seaway 
mission, which was one of the first U.S. government sponsored missions 
to post-apartheid South Africa. South African trade through the Seaway 
was eleventh overall in 1996 with over 340,000 tons of cargo and 
ranking at three percent of total overseas trade through the System. In 
addition to the traditional program presentations and individual 
meetings, the SLSDC participated in the annual South African 
International Trade Exposition. Similar exhibits by lake port and 
Seaway vessel operators accompanied the SLSDC international static 
exhibit. SLSDC representatives and their travel costs included: Acting 
Administrator, David G. Sanders--$6,531; Ginger Vuich, Director 
Congressional and Public Affairs--$6,531; Craig Middlebrook, Chief of 
Staff--$4,498 (Hamburg); Joe Craig, International Trade Specialist--
$2,511 (Hamburg); Ron Rudolph, International Trade Specialist--$6,197 
(South Africa).
    Seaway trade development delegation to Limassol, Cyprus and Athens, 
Greece: Planned for May 28-June 5, 1998. The SLSDC will lead a 
binational delegation of Seaway maritime participants representing 
ports, vessel operators, agricultural and breakbulk cargo shippers. 
Planning is for two staff members to accompany the Acting 
Administrator. In both Cyprus and Greece the delegation will conduct 
formal presentations on the Seaway System for overseas industry and 
government representatives followed by one-on-one meetings and on site 
trips to terminals, vessels, and specialized cargo handling facilities. 
In Greece, Corporation staff and industry representatives will 
participate in the Posidonia Maritime Exhibition utilizing the Seaway 
static display. The Posidonia Exhibition, held every two years, is the 
largest gathering of ship owners and operators in the world. As a 
result of a 1996 trip to the Cyprus/Athens sites, Ferum lines committed 
four additional vessels to Seaway service and Diana Shipbuilding 
committed four additional vessels to be refitted in compliance with 
Seaway transit regulations.
    Question. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997 actual, and fiscal years 
1998 and 1999 estimated, please break out travel and transportation of 
persons into two categories: (1) trade and travel missions to both 
potential new markets and traditional markets; and (2) non-trade 
related travel.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1996       1997       1998       1999
                                Actual     Actual   Estimated  Estimated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trade Missions..............    $23,000    $44,000    $45,000    $46,000
Non-trade related travel....    135,000    138,000    144,000    158,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        seaway sponsored events
    Question. Please provide a listing of any trade, industry, or other 
visits, seminars, or ``summits'' at the Seaway that have been sponsored 
by the Corporation during the last year. Please outline the results of 
and benefits derived from each of these sponsored events.
    Answer. The report last year covered events through April 2, 1997.
    June 25, 1997: The SLSDC and the Canadian Seaway Authority (SLSA) 
co-sponsored a meeting of the GPS/AIS binational steering committee in 
Montreal to further progress on program implementation by 1999.
    July 9, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA initiated a meeting with Transport Canada 
(TC) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in Boston, MA, on the 
Montreal vessel inspection program.
    July 14, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting with the Canadian 
``Users'' group on tolls and binational initiatives in Stamford, CT.
    August 11-22, 1997: SLSDC sponsored the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence 
Seaway Domestic trade Mission, discussed above.
    August 14, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting of the GPS/AIS 
binational steering committee in Massena, NY, to further progress on 
program implementation by 1999.
    September 10, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting of the GPS/
AIS binational steering committee in Ottawa, ON, to further progress on 
program implementation by 1999.
    September 18, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a Seaway welcome 
ceremony for the maiden voyage of a new German cruise ship built for 
Seaway transit, in Montreal, and in Massena, NY.
    October 15, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA participated in a joint meeting on 
GPS/AIS binational steering committee strategy, in Montreal, to further 
progress on program implementation by 1999.
    November 20, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting of the GPS/AIS 
binational steering committee in Montreal to further progress on 
program implementation by 1999.
    December 4-5, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored trade development 
strategy meetings with carrier representatives in Montreal.
    December 11, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting with Transport 
Canada (TC) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in Washington, DC, 
on the Montreal vessel inspection program.
    January 15-16, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored trade development 
strategy meetings with carrier representatives, the American Great 
Lakes Ports Association, the International Great Lakes Ports 
Association and the Canadian Maritime Chamber of Commerce in Toronto, 
ON.
    January 21, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA participated in a meeting with the 
USCG in Cleveland, OH, on the Montreal vessel inspection program.
    January 29-30, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a workshop and program 
presentation on the GPS/AIS program for the binational steering 
committee in Montreal.
    March 3-4, 1998: SLSDC participated in the Seatrade Cruise Ship 
Convention, that included a Lakes/Seaway program presentation to cruise 
vessel operators, in Miami, FL.
    March 23, 1998: SLSDC sponsored a Seaway issues meeting with U.S. 
lake port directors in Washington, DC.
    March 25, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored the Annual Industry Day 
meeting in Montreal prior to opening of the 1998 navigation season.
    March 26, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored the Seaway 1998 opening day 
ceremonies in Montreal and Massena, NY.
    April 7-8, 1998: SLSDC sponsored a trade development meeting with 
lakes/Seaway industry leaders in Chicago, IL.
              st. lawrence seaway authority toll increases
    Question. The Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has announced 
that, effective June 1, 1998, a 2 percent increase in tolls will be 
imposed on the Montreal/Lake Ontario and Welland Canal sections of the 
St. Lawrence Seaway. Is the increase in tolls meant to offset loss of 
lockage fee revenue resulting from the SLSA decision to end the 
collection of lockage fees at the Welland Canal that began at the start 
of the 1998 navigation season?
    Answer. Although the Seaway Authority agreed in writing on June 24, 
1997 to eliminate Welland Canal lockage fees Transport Canada precluded 
implementation of the agreement. The Authority President was replaced 
by an Acting President who deferred toll negotiations to Transport 
Canada and never responded to a second toll proposal by SLSDC in 
October of 1997. The recently announced 2 percent toll increase is a 
unilateral decision by Transport Canada that abrogates the 1959 
Memorandum of Agreement on the Seaway Tariff of Tolls between the two 
nations.
    Question. Has the SLSDC analyzed the Seaway traffic and cost 
implications of the SLSA decision to increase tolls? Taking into 
consideration both the SLSA's discontinuation of the lockage fee and 
the 2 percent increase in tolls, will the net resulting total fees and 
tolls for the average Seaway transit be the same as that of the average 
Seaway transit in calendar year 1997, or will that total now be higher?
    Answer. The proposed increase effective June 1, 1998 is an across-
the-board increase of 2 percent for all Tariff charges at both sections 
of the System including the Welland lockage fees. Therefore the impact 
per transit over 1997 is a 2 percent increase for all Seaway costs.
    Question. Might these toll increases have a chilling effect on 
Seaway traffic? Please provide the Committee with any available 
historical data linking traffic levels to tolls.
    Answer. In the short-range the impact of a 2 percent increase 
following four years of tolls frozen at 1993 levels should be minimal. 
However, the long-range concern is that Transport Canada is 
implementing the first year of a proposed five-year series of toll 
increases at a minimum of 2 percent, up to a maximum of 3.5 percent a 
year. The proposed cargo toll alone on U.S. export grain could rise 
from the current $1.06 per metric ton up to a range of $1.17 to $1.26, 
per metric ton, that would generate diversions of tonnage from the 
Seaway to competing rail and river movements, affecting U.S. port 
economies. Grain and low value bulk commodities are highly susceptible 
to transport route diversion from relatively minor per-ton shipping 
cost increases.
         court ruling regarding transfer of pilotage functions
    Question. A November 1997 U.S. Court of Appeals decision found that 
the Secretary of Transportation lacks the authority to delegate Great 
Lakes pilotage powers and duties directly to the SLSDC, but may either 
retain direct authority over Great Lakes pilotage powers and duties or 
delegate these functions to the U.S. Coast Guard. Have the SLSDC 
pilotage functions been transferred out? (if they have not yet been 
transferred, when will they be?) Have they been transferred to the 
Office of the Secretary, or to the U.S. Coast Guard? What cost savings 
are associated with the reduction of two FTE's?
    Answer. Great Lakes pilotage functions (4 FTE's) are in the process 
of being transferred from the SLSDC to the Field Activities Directorate 
(G-MO) of the U.S. Coast Guard's Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety 
and Environmental Protection. The staff is already working for G-MO on 
detail, and will be permanently transferred as soon as the necessary 
paperwork is completed. There is no cost savings as SLSDC will fund the 
pilotage staff through fiscal year 1998 even after the transfer is 
final. fiscal year 1999 funding is based on the PBO financial plan with 
or without the Coast Guard staff.
                    emergency reserve fund balances
    Question. One of the management accountability goals of the SLSDC 
this year is to increase the emergency reserve account to ensure 
contingency funding for catastrophic emergencies and funding of 
critical capital outlay needs. Please provide the Committee a 
historical record of reserve account year-end balances from 1988 to 
1997.
    Answer. The information follows.

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fiscal YR               End Balance   Draw-down                        Purpose
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988................................         10.1  ...........  ................................................
1989................................         11.5  ...........  ................................................
1990................................         11.2          0.3  Lock Wall Structural Evaluation.
1991................................         11.6  ...........  ................................................
1992................................         12.6  ...........  ................................................
1993................................         11.9          0.9  Maintenance Dredging.
1994................................         11.8          0.4  Concrete & Gate Repair.
1995................................         11.9          0.3  Concrete Repair.
1996................................         11.2          1.0  Concrete Repair & Replace Workboat.
1997................................         10.3          1.4  Capital Outlay Projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. The fiscal year 1999 year-end balance performance goal 
target is $10.68 million. Please support the goal. Why does the SLSDC 
need this emergency reserve amount?
    Answer. The PBO financial plan included a commitment by SLSDC to 
build the emergency reserve to a level of $12 million plus an annual 
construction cost inflator of 5 percent. This is the estimated cost 
level to repair a double lock gate failure. The SLSDC needs the reserve 
account to ensure immediate contingency funding for any catastrophic 
event and/or critical capital outlay projects beyond annual budgeted 
funds.
    Question. What would be the potential ``worst case scenario'' 
effect of reducing the emergency reserve below this target level of 
$10.68 million? Please present scenarios for an emergency reserve level 
of: $10 million, $9 million, and $8 million.
    Answer. SLSDC believes the worst case scenario is any reserve level 
below the $12 million, which is the minimum amount needed to replaced 
one set of the locks located at both ends of each lock (the so-called 
``double gate failure''). Whether at $10.68 million, $10 million, $9 
million or $8 million, the risk of a catastrophic event prevails. The 
level of the reserve is a measure of our ability to recover from such 
an event.
                      targeted vessel inspections
    Question. Beginning in 1997, the SLSDC instituted a targeted vessel 
inspection regime under which all vessels entering the Seaway for the 
first trip inbound each year at Montreal would be inspected once, and 
thereafter a special screening criteria would be used for any 
additional trips into the System. Please describe the screening 
criteria used to determine whether vessels would be subject to 
subsequent boardings and inspections.
    Answer. Certain vessels may have need of additional inspections 
during subsequent transits based on requirements in the USCG 
prioritization matrix or vessel history. Such vessels that complete a 
self exam checklist may be allowed to proceed to their destination port 
with a risk-based spotcheck in lieu of a complete inspection, or the 
vessel may request inspection in Montreal. Future recognition of the 
self-examination checklist and spotchecks will vary with the record 
established by each vessel in compliance with the self-examination 
program and amendments which may be made in the administration of the 
USCG prioritization matrix. Other vessels may be required to have a 
second inspection during the navigation season because of 
unsatisfactory performance during their Seaway transit, reports of 
significant deficiencies since their last transit, or removal from the 
``cleared vessel list'' by the SLSDC.
    Question. Does this new practice decrease the overall number of 
boardings and inspections? Please cite the number of boardings/
inspections in U.S. waters in calendar years 1996 and 1997.
    Answer. The SLSDC objective for the new inspection regime was to 
eliminate in-transit inspections that were occurring between the U.S. 
locks in Massena, to eliminate unnecessary duplication of inspections, 
and to enhance consolidation of U.S. and Canadian Seaway and Coast 
Guard inspections at Montreal, prior to entering U.S. waters. Therefore 
the number of inspections will be about the same each season, subject 
to routine traffic fluctuations, but focussed at Montreal. The program 
has been a significant positive customer service activity without 
compromising safety or environmental considerations. Vessel customers 
save time, which translates into reduced operating costs (an average 
ocean vessel time savings is 4 hours which equates to $1,600 or 16 
percent of a total daily operating cost of $10,000) and are able to 
resolve problems in the Montreal area before entering the lock system. 
During the 1997 navigation season the SLSDC performed 227 port state 
inspections (USCG 23) at Montreal. During 1996 SLSDC performed 100 port 
state inspections at Montreal, and an additional 62 were performed in-
transit in the Massena area (water ballast and spotcheck inspections 
are not included in the port state program count).
    Question. If the number of boardings and inspections decreases 
overall, what cost savings are anticipated? Are these SLSDC cost 
savings or U.S. Coast Guard savings?
    Answer. Routinely the number of inspections at Montreal will be 
about the same as the previous Montreal-plus-Massena in-transit 
inspections. Over the long-term, an increase in inspections overall is 
anticipated with the growth of international traffic through the 
System.
                            staffing levels
    Question. How many full time equivalent employees does the SLSDC 
currently employ? Does this include a 2 FTE decrease resulting from the 
transfer out of Great Lakes pilotage functions?
    Answer. SLSDC currently has 147 full time permanent, 2 part time 
permanent, and 5 temporary employees on board. The 2 FTE decrease for 
fiscal year 1998 represents the reduction in FTE level established by 
the Corporation's streamlining plan commitment. The pilotage function 
represents 4 FTE's.
    Question. Please break out the current on-board staff by location 
(Washington, D.C. or Massena), function, and civil service versus wage 
grade personnel. Please prepare a comparative table showing on-board 
staff exactly one year ago.
    Answer. The Information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   On Board 5/11/98    On Board 5/11/97
                                 ---------------------------------------
             OFFICE                General    Wage     General    Wage
                                  schedule    grade   schedule    grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         WASHINGTON, DC
 
Acting Administrator............         6  ........         5  ........
Congressional & Public Affairs..         7  ........         6  ........
Development & Logistics.........         3  ........         3  ........
Great Lakes Pilotage............         3  ........         4  ........
                                 ---------------------------------------
      TOTAL.....................        19  ........        18  ........
                                 =======================================
           MASSENA, NY
 
Associate Administrator.........         3  ........         4  ........
Administration..................        11  ........        12  ........
Finance.........................        14         1        15         1
Engineering & Strategic Plng....         6  ........         6  ........
Maintenance & Marine Services...         7        47         7        48
Lock Operations.................        13        33        13        31
                                 ---------------------------------------
      TOTAL.....................        54        81        57        80
                                 =======================================
      GRAND TOTAL BY PAY SYSTEM.        73        81        75        80
                                 =======================================
OVERALL TOTALS..................          154
                                          155
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               proposed fiscal year 1999 budget increases
    Question. The proposed fiscal year 1999 increase in personnel 
compensation is $76,000 above last year's enacted level, despite the 
fact that 2 Great Lakes pilot FTE positions will be transferred out 
before October 1, 1998. Why will it cost more to pay fewer people?
    Answer. The increase of $76,000 in personnel compensation for 
fiscal year 1999 represents within-grades, promotions and cost of 
living increases offset by the reduction of 2 FTE's in compliance with 
the streamlining plan commitment, not the pilotage function, which is 4 
FTE's.
    Question. In referencing the budget justification's ``non-
discretionary program changes'' on page 23, an additional $289,000 in 
pay act, wage board, and inflationary increases is assumed, which is 
then offset by management savings of $225,000 associated with the 2 FTE 
reduction. This nets to an increase of $64,000 in additional pay and 
inflation costs. Why isn't this the same amount as the proposed 
personnel compensation increase of $76,000 outlined on page 13 of the 
budget justification?
    Answer. The increase of $76,000 outlined on page 13 of the budget 
justification includes anticipated within-grades and promotions, which 
are not specifically outlined in the program changes. The $64,000 
represents program changes including other non-pay object classes.
    Question. How did you determine an estimate of $60,000 for non-pay 
inflationary increases?
    Answer. Inflationary increases of $60,000 in non-pay object classes 
were based on a 2.3 percent inflation factor, allowing for changes in 
cost and supply factors.
    Question. In your budget request, travel increases 8 percent from 
the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. Much of this increase is associated 
with travel to and from Washington, D.C. and Massena, NY. Why is this 
increase anticipated?
    Answer. An increase in travel from Washington to Massena is 
anticipated since the Acting Administrator is committed to involving 
all employees in the PBO performance based process and related 
legislative concerns. This requires outreach meetings with the 
partnership council and frequent information sessions with AFGE Local 
1968 and with the union executive board. All DC and Massena employees 
at every level are included in development of annual performance 
agreements with the Secretary and annual performance plans included in 
the budget process. In addition, employees have raised concerns and 
issues about PBO legislation and performance measures, the Binational 
Seaway agency legislation developed by Congressman Oberstar, and 
proposed restructuring of the SLSA by Transport Canada.
                            RELATED AGENCIES
       Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                          detectable warnings
    Question. Under the Board's January 28, 1998 notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the temporary suspension of the detectable warnings 
requirement is extended to July 26, 2000, in order to allow the Board 
to address substantive requirements for detectable warnings in the 
ADAAG revision rulemaking. The ADAAG review advisory committee that 
considered these requirements has recommended the requirements for curb 
ramps, hazardous vehicle areas, and reflecting pools be entirely 
eliminated, and that the transit station platform edge requirements 
allow for ``equivalent tactile surface and detectability.'' Will the 
next two years' of Board review under the extended suspension focus on 
determining what will constitute equivalent tactile surface and 
detectability for transit station platforms? What other substantive 
issues will be reviewed?
    Answer. The Board intends to adopt the recommendations of the ADAAG 
Review Advisory Committee regarding detectable warnings in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking to revise ADAAG. The ADAAG Review Advisory 
Committee recommended that detectable warnings be required only in 
transit facilities where platform edges border a drop-off and are not 
protected by platform screens or guard rails. In addition to the 
existing technical specifications for using truncated domes as 
detectable warnings, the ADAAG Review Advisory Committee recommended 
that performance oriented specifications for equivalent tactile 
surfaces and equivalent detectability be included in ADAAG. The Board 
does not intend to further review any substantive issues regarding 
detectable warnings before the notice of proposed rulemaking to revise 
ADAAG is published. The Board will consider public comments submitted 
in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking to revise ADAAG, 
including the substantive requirements for detectable warnings, before 
approving a final rule. The Board has proposed to extend the temporary 
suspension of the detectable warning requirements to July 26, 2000, in 
order to allow the substantive requirements to be addressed in the 
rulemaking to revise ADAAG.
                       budget request adjustments
    Question. Please explain more fully the request for a 67 percent 
increase in staff training (from $15,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $25,000 
in fiscal year 1999). Generally, what staff training is required? Is 
there a staff training need that is currently being unmet, or does this 
increased request reflect a specific one-time need that will occur in 
fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. The Board has always had a policy to invest heavily in 
staff training. We operate in a changing technical environment and it 
is extremely important for the staff to keep up to date when developing 
state-of-the-art accessibility guidelines. The Board originally planned 
to spend $25,000 on training in fiscal year 1999. The money the Board 
sought to spend on staff training had to be used to cover the increased 
cost of supporting the development of its guidelines. We have requested 
the original fiscal year 1998 level of $25,000 again in fiscal year 
1999.
    We expect that the kinds of training sought in fiscal year 1999 
will be similar to past training. In the recent past, we have provided 
the following training to staff members:
  --Web Page design and HTML language;
  --Duties of a contracting officers technical representative;
  --Records management and filling;
  --Supervisory skills;
  --Investigating complaints of discrimination;
  --Human resource and management skills;
  --Beginning and advanced regulation drafting;
  --Federal budget formulation; and
  --Registration fees at professional conferences.
    Additionally, in fiscal year 1997, we provided training on giving 
effective presentations to staff involved in our guideline training 
program. We also have contributed $2,000 to the Small Agency Council 
training fund which sponsors courses such as time management and 
supervisory skills that would not be cost effective for small agencies 
to sponsor alone.
                            board membership
    Question. Please update the information provided in previous Senate 
hearing records regarding status of terms of members on the Board, 
including both Federal and public members. Please include each member's 
attendance record at the Board meetings during the 12-month period 
between May 1997 and April 1998. Please include a narrative explaining 
the members' attendance records similar to that in last year's hearing 
record.
    Answer. The requested tables follow.

                   ACCESS BOARD MEMBER AND LIAISON ATTENDANCE BY MEETINGS, MAY 1997-APRIL 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Washington, DC--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                            05/14/97   07/09/97   09/10/97   01/14/98   03/11/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   PUBLIC MEMBERS/TERM
 
Nancy J. Bloch, 12/03/99.................................          x          x          x  .........          x
Patrick D. Cannon, 12/03/98..............................          x          x          x          x          x
John H. Catlin, 12/03/01.................................          x          x          x          x          x
Marilyn Golden, 12/03/00.................................          x          x          x  .........          x
Marc D. Guthrie, 12/03/00................................          x          x          x          x          x
Margaret C. Hager, 12/03/98..............................          x          x          x  .........          x
Pamela Y. Holmes, 12/03/01...............................          x          x          x          x          x
June I. Kailes, 12/03/98.................................          x          x          x          x          x
Carl G. Lewis, 12/03/98..................................          x          x          x          x          x
Donna L. Sorkin, 12/03/01................................          x  .........          x          x          x
Lori L. Vande Zande, 12/03/99............................          x          x          x          x          x
James J. Weisman, 12/03/99...............................          x          x          x  .........          x
Vacant...................................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
 
              FEDERAL MEMBERS/LIAISON STAFF
 
DOC:
    Member...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Liaison..............................................          x  .........          x          x          x
DOD:
    Member...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Liaison..............................................  .........          x          x  .........          x
ED:
    Member...............................................          x          x          x          x          x
    Liaison..............................................          x          x          x          x          x
GSA:
    Member...............................................  .........          x          x  .........          x
    Liaison..............................................          x          x          x          x          x
HHS:
    Member...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          x
    Liaison..............................................          x          x  .........          x          x
HUD:
    Member...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Liaison..............................................          x          x          x          x          x
DOI:
    Member...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Liaison..............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
DOJ:
    Member...............................................  .........  .........          x  .........  .........
    Liaison..............................................          x          x          x          x          x
DOL:
    Member...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Liaison..............................................          x  .........          x          x          x
DOT:
    Member...............................................          x  .........  .........  .........          x
    Liaison..............................................          x          x          x          x          x
USPS:
    Member...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Liaison..............................................          x  .........          x  .........  .........
VA:
    Member...............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........          x
    Liaison..............................................          x          x  .........          x          x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The November 13, 1997 Board meeting was substituted with a town meeting in Louisville, Kentucky.

    Department of Commerce.--The Honorable W. Scott Gould, Chief 
Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, was 
designated a member in October 1997 and has not attended any meetings. 
The Honorable Raymond G. Kammer, Jr., former Acting Chief Financial 
Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, did not attended 
any meetings. The staff liaison, Mr. William J. Porter, Jr., External 
Program Manager, Office of Civil Rights, attended four meetings.
    Department of Defense.--The Honorable Rudy de Leon, Under Secretary 
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), was designated a member in 
February 1998 and has not attended any meetings. The Honorable F.Y. 
Pang, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), did not 
attend any meetings. The staff liaison, Ms. Judith Gilliom, Deputy 
Director for Equal Opportunity Policy (Disability Programs), attended 
three meetings.
    Department of Education.--The Honorable Judith E. Heumann, 
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
attended five meetings. The staff liaison, Mr. William Peterson, 
Program Manager, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation 
Research, became a liaison in November 1997 and attended two meetings. 
MS. RoseAnn Ashby, Vocational Rehabilitation Program Specialist, 
Rehabilitation Services Administration, attended three meetings.
    General Services Administration.--The Honorable Thurman M. Davis, 
Sr., Deputy Administrator, attended three meetings. The staff liaison, 
Mr. Anthony Waller, National Program Manager for Accessibility, 
attended five meetings.
    Department of Health and Human Services.--The Honorable Harriet S. 
Rabb, General Counsel, attended one meeting. The staff liaison, MS. 
Charlene Tusan, Attorney, attended four meetings.
    Department of Housing and Urban Development.--The Honorable Eva M. 
Plaza, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Initiatives, Office of Fair 
Housing and Equal Opportunity, was designated a member in December 1997 
and has not attended any meetings. Mr. Andrew Cuomo, The Secretary, 
interim Board Member since March 1997, has not attended any meetings. 
The staff liaison, MS. Cheryl Kent, Director, Disability Rights 
Division, Office of Fair Housing and Urban Development, attended five 
meetings.
    Department of the Interior.--The Honorable M. John Berry, Assistant 
Secretary, Policy Management and Budget, was designated a member in 
November 1997 and has not attended any meetings. The Honorable Bonnie 
Cohen, former Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, 
has not attended any meetings. The staff liaison, Mr. Melvin C. Fowler, 
Process Manager, Office for Equal Opportunity, has not attended any 
meetings.
    Department of Justice.--The Honorable Bill Lann Lee, Acting 
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, was designated as a member 
in December 1997, and has not attended any meetings. The Honorable 
Isabelle Katz Pinzler, former Acting Assistant Attorney General for 
Civil Rights, attended one meeting. The staff liaison, MS. Janet L. 
Blizard, Supervisory Attorney, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights 
Division, attended five meetings.
    Department of Labor.--The Honorable Bernard E. Anderson, Assistant 
Secretary for Employment Standards, has not attended any meetings. The 
staff Liaison, Ms. Diane Smith, Manager, Field Liaison, attended four 
meetings.
    Department of Transportation.--A representative has not been 
designated to serve as a Board Member. The Honorable John Lieber, 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, attended one 
meeting. The Honorable Frank E. Kruesi, former Assistant Secretary for 
Transportation Policy, attended one meeting. The staff liaison, Dr. Ira 
Laster, Jr., Senior Program Coordinator, Office of Environment, Energy, 
and Safety, attended five meetings.
    United States Postal Service.--The Honorable Rudolph K. Umscheid, 
Vice President, Facilities, has not attended any meetings. The staff 
liaison, Mr. Michael Goodwin, Manager, Design and Construction, was 
designated as a liaison in December 1997 and has not attended any 
meetings. Mr. Charles Baker, Architectural Barriers Compliance 
Coordinator, attended two meetings.
    Department of Veterans Affairs.--The Honorable Eugene A. 
Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration, 
attended one meeting. The staff liaison, Mr. Dennis Hancher, Barrier 
Free Design, Office of Construction Management, attended four meetings.
                              travel costs
    Question. Please list by city all out-of-town staff travel during 
fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to date. Include a brief description of the 
purpose of the trip, and indicate which trips were training sessions. 
Please also include columns listing the cost of each staff trip, and if 
the trip was a training session, what portion of the associated costs 
were reimbursed.
    Answer. The requested tables follow.

                                                        FISCAL YEAR 1997 STAFF OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Reimbursable
        Traveler/city                  Dates                                       Purpose                                     Cost           amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pecht, Jim, Chicago, IL......        10/08-10/08/96  ADA Training--Nat'l Assoc. of Elevator Contractor's................         $194.70         $142.50
Beatty, Paul, Nantucket, MA..        10/20-10/22/96  Site Visit--Access to Floating Docks...............................          772.92  ..............
Alperin, David, Parkersburg,         10/20-10/22/96  Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt..............................          691.58  ..............
 WV.
Brooks, Meriel, Parkersburg,         10/20-10/22/96  Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt..............................          566.01  ..............
 WV.
Johnston, Tanya, Parkersburg,        10/20-10/22/96  Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt..............................          560.50  ..............
 WV.
Greenwell, Peggy, Kansas             10/22-10/29/96  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg /ADA Training--Nat'l Recreation and Parks           1,370.30  ..............
 City, MO.                                            Assoc.
Alperin, David, Kansas City,         10/26-10/29/96  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.............................................          700.29  ..............
 MO.
Ola, Kansas City, MO.........        10/26-10/29/96  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.............................................          719.93  ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Birmingham, AL.        10/28-10/29/96  Model Code Mtg.....................................................          444.94  ..............
Roffee, Lawrence, Seattle, WA        10/30-11/01/96  ADA Training--Northwest DBTAC......................................          564.59          241.50
Thibault, Lois, Sacramento,          11/06-11/08/96  ADA Training--Metropolitan Transportation Commission...............          522.01          522.01
 CA.
Roffee, Lawrence, Perth,             11/07-11/17/96  Accessibility Training--Gov't of Western Australia.................        4,647.50        3,673.78
 Australia.
Capozzi, David:
    Honolulu, HI.............        11/14-11/18/96  ADA Training--American Bar Assoc...................................        1,240.97          961.06
    Boston, MA...............        11/21-11/21/96  ADA Training--Build Boston.........................................          476.72  ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Chicago, IL....        11/25-11/26/96  ADA Training--Great Lakes DBTAC....................................          262.00          262.00
Beatty, Paul, Denver, CO.....        12/06-12/08/96  Advisory Meeting--Ski Areas........................................          453.32  ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Atlanta, GA....        12/09-12/10/96  Platform Lift Safety Code Mtg......................................          751.82  ..............
Ola, Berkeley, CA............        01/03-01/13/97  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.............................................          936.20  ..............
Beatty, Paul, Berkeley, CA           01/05-01/10/97  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.............................................          783.20  ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Berkeley,          01/05-01/10/97  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.............................................       $1,209.52  ..............
 CA.
Johnston, Tanya, Berkeley, CA        01/05-01/10/97  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.............................................        1,205.28  ..............
Greenwell, Peggy:
    Orlando, FL..............        01/17-01/18/97  Swimming Pool Standard Mtg.........................................          596.62  ..............
    Chicago, IL..............        01/27-01/28/97  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.............................................          332.50  ..............
Brooks, Meriel, Parkersburg,         01/28-01/29/97  Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt..............................          483.38  ..............
 WV.
Johnston, Tanya, Parkersburg,        01/28-01/29/97  Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt..............................          570.10  ..............
 WV.
Mazz, Marsha, Honolulu, HI...        02/24-02/28/97  ADA Training--Hawaii Commission on Persons with Disabilities.......          457.50  ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Kalamazoo,         03/13-03/14/97  ADA Training--Assoc. of Landscape Architects.......................          828.83          828.83
 MI /Dearborn, MI.
Beatty, Paul, Dallas, TX.....        03/20-03/21/97  ADA Training--Nat'l Child Care Assoc...............................          447.20           77.20
Thibault, Lois, Tampa, FL /          03/23-03/31/97  ADA Training--Great Plains DBTAC...................................        1,033.41          381.00
 Columbia, MO.
Roffee, Lawrence, New York,          04/02-04/03/97  ADA Training--Greater NY Auto Dealers Assoc........................          405.50          252.50
 NY.
Thibault, Lois, San Diego, CA        04/05-04/08/97  ADA Training--American Planning Assoc..............................          576.68  ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Chicago, IL....        04/06-04/11/97  Model Codes Mtg....................................................          863.22  ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Ocean City,        04/09-04/10/97  ADA Training--Maryland Parks and Recreation Assoc..................          223.20          100.20
 MD.
Roffee, Lawrence, Charlotte,         04/10-04/11/97  Funeral of Board Member............................................          649.08  ..............
 NC.
Yanchulis, David, Charlotte,         04/19-04/20/97  ADA Training--Miller Freeman.......................................          626.30          626.30
 NC.
Alperin, David, Louisville,          04/24-04/24/97  Site Inspection for Future Board Mtg...............................          418.08  ..............
 KY.
Little, Susan, Atlanta, GA...        04/26-04/30/97  ADA Training--Assoc. of Museum Administrators......................          870.36  ..............
Roffee, Lawrence:
    Oakland, CA..............        05/02-05/08/97  ADA Training--Pacific DBTAC........................................          932.86          932.86
    New Orleans, LA..........        05/15-05/17/97  ADA Training--American Institute of Architects.....................          791.72          350.00
Yanchulis, David, Seattle, WA        05/27-05/29/97  ADA Training--Washington Department of General Administration......          646.45          646.45
Mazz, Marsha, New York, NY...        06/10-06/10/97  Platform Lifts Safety Code Mtg.....................................          217.00  ..............
Yanchulis, David, State              06/11-06/13/97  ADA Training--Classroom Acoustics..................................          114.33  ..............
 College, PA.
Capozzi, David, Phoenix, AZ..        06/14-06/15/97  Meeting--Self Help for Hard of Hearing People......................          726.46  ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, San Diego,         06/19-06/22/97  Advisory Mtg with Pools Manufacturers..............................          521.23  ..............
 CA.
Roffee, Lawrence, Concord, NH        07/25-07/28/97  ADA Training--NH Governor's Committee on Persons with Disabilities.          720.93  ..............
Little, Susan, Austin, TX....        08/19-08/21/97  ADA Training--Electrical Engineers Assoc...........................          581.77  ..............
Thibault, Lois, Boston, MA...        08/25-08/26/97  ADA Training--American Society of Civil Engineers..................          469.45  ..............
Capozzi, David, Louisville,          09/04-09/04/97  Site Visit for November Board Mtg..................................          429.37  ..............
 KY.
Greenwell, Peggy,                    09/07-09/08/97  ADA Training--Nat'l Center on Accessibility........................           54.76           54.76
 Indianapolis, IN.
Beatty, Paul, Seattle, WA....        09/07-09/11/97  ADA Training--Washington Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities...          694.83          572.93
Windley, Scott, Denver, CO...        09/09-09/10/97  ADA Training--Nat'l League of Cities...............................          442.63          420.13
Yanchulis, David,                    09/12-09/14/97  ADA Training--American Public Works Assoc..........................          641.09  ..............
 Minneapolis, MN.
Cannon, Dennis, Philadelphia,        09/16-09/16/97  ADA Training--Universal Atlantic...................................          142.70          142.00
 PA.
Alperin, David, Santa Cruz,          09/23-09/27/97  Outdoor Developed Areas Reg Neg Mtg................................        1,213.39  ..............
 CA.
Bunales, Rose, Santa Cruz, CA        09/23-09/27/97  Outdoor Developed Areas Reg Neg Mtg................................        1,068.76  ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Santa Cruz,        09/23-09/27/97  Outdoor Developed Areas Reg Neg Mtg................................        1,163.25  ..............
 CA.
Beatty, Paul, Santa Cruz,CA..        09/23-09/27/97  Outdoor Developed Areas Reg Neg Mtg................................        1,108.60  ..............
Sesker, Earlene, Montgomery,         09/24-09/25/97  ADA Training--Alabama State Vocational Rehabilitation                        580.98          580.98
 AL.                                                  Administration.
                                                                                                                         -------------------------------
      Totals.................  ....................  ...................................................................       41,718.82       11,768.99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                        FISCAL YEAR 1998 STAFF OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Reimbursable
        Traveler/city                  Dates                                       Purpose                                     Cost           amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roffee, Lawrence, Seattle, WA        10/16-10/18/97  ADA Training--Nat'l League of Cities...............................       $1,446.01       $1,414.72
Thibault, Lois, Seattle, WA..        10/16-10/19/97  ADA Training--Nat'l League of Cities...............................          583.13          583.13
Lillard, Traci, Philadephia,         10/20-10/23/97  EEOC Training......................................................          584.70  ..............
 PA.
Greenwell, Peggy, Salt Lake          10/26-10/31/97  ADA Training--Nat'l Recreation and Parks Assoc. and Utah Division          1,225.44        1,225.44
 City, UT.                                            of Risk Management.
Thibault, Lois:
    Chicago, IL..............        11/04-11/06/97  ADA Training--Great Lakes DBTAC and American Society of Civil                472.80          472.80
                                                      Engineers.
    Atlanta, GA..............        11/08-11/10/97  American Society of Landscape Architects Convention................          640.04  ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Louisville, KY.        11/11-11/13/97  Board Mtg..........................................................          823.30  ..............
Alperin, David, Louisville,          11/11-11/14/97  Board Mtg..........................................................        1,069.73  ..............
 KY.
Greenwell, Peggy, Louisville,        11/11-11/14/97  Board Mtg..........................................................          646.37  ..............
 KY.
Beatty, Paul, Louisville, KY.        11/11-11/14/97  Board Mtg..........................................................          781.20  ..............
Capozzi, David, Louisville,          11/11-11/14/97  Board Mtg..........................................................          813.56  ..............
 KY.
Roffee, Lawrence, Louisville,        11/11-11/14/97  Board Mtg..........................................................          921.55  ..............
 KY.
Raggio, Jim, Louisville, KY..        11/11-11/14/97  Board Mtg..........................................................          639.00  ..............
Yanchulis, David, Louisville,        11/12-11/13/97  Board Mtg..........................................................          509.10  ..............
 KY.
Mazz, Marsha, Boston, MA.....        11/20-11/20/97  ADA Training--Build Boston.........................................          478.16  ..............
Thibault, Lois, Los Angeles,         12/05-12/08/97  Meeting on Acoustics...............................................          745.62  ..............
 CA.
Yanchulis, David, Atlanta, GA        12/07-12/08/97  Meeting--Major League Baseball.....................................          759.80  ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Charleston, WV.        12/10-12/11/97  ADA Training--WV Office of Health Facility Licensing...............          572.90  ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Seattle, WA        12/13-12/17/97  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..........................................          905.52  ..............
Bunales, Rose, Seattle, WA...        12/13-12/17/97  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..........................................          874.24  ..............
Beatty, Paul, Seattle, WA....        12/13-12/17/97  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..........................................          837.20  ..............
Alperin, David, Seattle, WA..        12/14-12/17/97  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..........................................        1,082.61  ..............
Yanchulis, David, New York,          01/07-01/07/98  Meeting on Assistive Listening Systems.............................          128.30  ..............
 NY.
Windley, Scott, West Palm            01/11-01/12/98  ANSI A117 Committee Mtg............................................          630.90  ..............
 Beach, FL.
Beatty, Paul, Melbourne, FL..        01/13-01/16/98  ADA Training--FL Dept. of Labor....................................          514.95          514.95
Windley, Scott, Huntsville,          01/18-01/19/98  ADA Training--Contract Specifications Institute....................          621.19          541.40
 AL.
Alperin, David, San Diego, CA        01/29-02/03/98  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..........................................        1,149.36  ..............
Bunales, Rose, San Diego, CA.        01/30-02/03/98  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..........................................          978.16  ..............
Beatty, Paul, San Diego, CA..        01/30-02/03/98  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..........................................          978.16  ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, San Diego,         01/30-02/07/98  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg & ADA Training--Int'l Trails Conference..        1,572.50          404.87
 CA/Los Angeles, CA.
Cannon, Dennis, San Juan, PR.        02/08-02/13/98  ADA Training--Federal Transit Administration & University of San           1,714.80        1,714.80
                                                      Juan.
Yanchulis, David, Dallas, TX.        02/09-02/10/98  ADA Training--Wal-Mart.............................................          450.50          450.50
Lillard, Traci, Houston, TX..        02/16-02/20/98  Staff Training.....................................................          644.32  ..............
Little, Susan, Houston, TX...        02/16-02/20/98  Staff Training.....................................................          725.51  ..............
Capozzi, David, Seattle, WA..        02/18-02/21/98  ADA Training--Microsoft............................................          730.81  ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Kalamazoo, MI..        02/24-02/25/98  ADA Training--Great Lakes DBTAC....................................          558.22          558.22
Alperin, David, Denver, CO...        02/27-02/28/98  Site Inspection for future public hearing..........................          736.21  ..............
Beatty, Paul, Lancaster, PA..        03/02-03/02/98  ADA Training--Nat'l Recreation and Park Assoc......................           92.90           92.90
Sesker, Earlene, Las Vegas,          03/06-03/07/98  ADA Training--Nat'l Childcare Assoc................................          336.17          336.17
 NV.
Greenwell, Peggy, Atlantic           03/16-03/17/98  ADA Training--NJ Nat'l Recreation and Park Assoc...................          523.26          523.26
 City, NJ.
Cannon, Dennis, Los Angeles,         03/16-03/21/98  ADA Training--Technology Conference................................        1,038.90  ..............
 CA.
Yanchulis, David, Honolulu,          03/24-03/28/98  ADA Training--Hawaii Commission on Persons with Disabilities.......          484.50          250.00
 HI.
Cannon, Dennis, Honolulu, HI         03/24-03/28/98  ADA Training--Hawaii Commission on Persons with Disabilities.......          423.24          423.24
Alperin, David, San                  03/26-03/28/98  Site Inspection for future Board Meeting...........................        1,000.91  ..............
 Francisco, CA.
Capozzi, David, Houston, TX..        03/29-03/31/98  ADA Training--Accessology..........................................          682.26          628.77
Mazz, Marsha, Houston, TX....        03/29-04/01/98  ADA Training--Accessology..........................................        1,033.61          962.31
Greenwell, Peggy, Okemos, MI.        04/15-04/16/98  ADA Training--Mid Cities Management Trust..........................          905.11          905.11
                                                                                                                         -------------------------------
      Totals.................  ....................  ...................................................................       36,066.73       12,002.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a separate travel costs table displaying 
Board member travel for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to date. Include the 
date and location of travel, a brief description of the trip's purpose, 
and the Board's costs.
    Answer. The requested tables follow.

                                                              FISCAL YEAR 1997 BOARD TRAVEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Traveler/city                      Dates                                           Purpose                                         Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play Reg Neg Committee Members,              10/22-10/29/96  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.....................................................         $969.39
 Kansas City, MO.
Lewis, Carl, Kansas City, MO.........        10/25-10/29/96  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.....................................................          599.92
Telecom Access Advisory Committee            11/05-11/08/96  Telecom Advisory Committee Mtg.............................................        1,076.00
 Member, Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC.        11/11-11/14/96  Board Mtg..................................................................        8,767.31
Telecom Access Advisory Committee            12/15-12/18/96  Telecom Advisory Committee Mtg.............................................        2,001.00
 Member, Washington, DC.
Kailes, June, Washington, DC.........        12/15-12/18/96  Telecom Advisory Committee Mtg.............................................          984.54
Catlin, John, Washington, DC.........        12/17-12/17/96  Federal Facilities Mtg.....................................................          230.50
Play Reg Neg Committee Members,              01/05-01/09/97  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.....................................................        2,143.72
 Berkeley, CA.
Lewis, Carl, Berkeley, CA............        01/05-01/09/97  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.....................................................          953.88
Telecom Access Advisory Committee            01/12-01/15/97  Telecom Advisory Committee Mtg.............................................        1,768.00
 Members, Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC.        01/12-01/15/97  Board Mtg..................................................................        8,720.64
Catlin, John, Washington, DC.........        02/08-02/08/97  Meeting--White House.......................................................          227.00
Long-Range Planning Committee                 02/17-2/19/97  Ad Hoc Committee on Long-Range Planning Mtg................................        2,956.04
 Members, Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC.        03/09-03/13/97  Board Mtg..................................................................       12,706.91
Play Reg Neg Committee Members,              04/01-04/04/97  Play Area Reg Neg Mtg......................................................          500.00
 Washington, DC.
Lewis, Carl, Washington, DC..........        04/01-04/04/97  Play Area Reg Neg Mtg......................................................        1,269.00
Public Board Members, Washington, DC.        05/11-05/14/97  Board Mtg..................................................................        9,121.37
Catlin, John, Washington, DC.........        06/03-06/03/97  Agency Goals Mtg...........................................................          273.00
Weisman, James, Washington, DC               06/03-06/03/97  Agency Goals Mtg...........................................................          188.50
Kailes, June, Washington, DC.........        06/03-06/03/97  Agency Goals Mtg...........................................................          421.00
Cannon, Patrick:
    San Francisco, CA................        06/08-06/10/97  Meeting--Talking Signs.....................................................        1,103.00
    Washington, DC...................        06/11-06/14/97  AIA Mtg....................................................................        1,309.15
Catlin, John, Washington, DC.........        06/11-06/14/97  AIA Mtg....................................................................          961.93
Outdoor Reg Neg Committee Members,           06/25-06/28/97  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................          738.00
 Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC.        07/06-07/10/97  Board Mtg..................................................................       11,970.80
Play Reg Neg Committee Members,              07/06-07/10/97  Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg.....................................................          226.00
 Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC.        09/07-09/11/97  Board Mtg..................................................................        9,314.30
Catlin, John, Washington, DC.........        09/16-09/18/97  Meeting--GSA...............................................................          484.32
 
Outdoor Reg Neg Committee Members,           09/23-09/27/97  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................        2,019.00
 Santa Cruz, CA.
Golden, Marilyn, Santa Cruz, CA......        09/23-09/27/97  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................          329.98
                                                                                                                                         ---------------
      Total..........................  ....................  ...........................................................................       84,334.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              FISCAL YEAR 1998 BOARD TRAVEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Traveler/city                      Dates                                           Purpose                                         Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis, Carl, Salt Lake City, UT......        10/29-10/30/97  ADA Training--Nat'l Recreation and Parks Assoc.............................         $133.91
Public Board Members, Louisville, KY.        11/11-11/14/97  Board Mtg..................................................................       11,156.61
Sorkin, Donna, Los Angeles, CA.......        12/04-12/07/97  Meeting on Acoustics.......................................................          928.07
Cannon, Patrick, Atlanta, GA.........        12/07-12/09/97  Meeting--Major League Baseball Association.................................          977.60
Outdoor Reg Neg Committee Members,           12/13-12/17/97  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................        2,263.00
 Seattle, WA.
Golden, Marilyn, Seattle, WA.........        12/13-12/17/97  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................          728.30
Sorkin, Donna, New York, NY..........        01/07-01/07/98  Meeting on Assistive Listening Systems.....................................          187.50
Public Board Members, Washington, DC.        01/11-01/15/98  Board Mtg..................................................................        8,596.09
Golden, Marilyn, San Diego, CA.......        01/30-02/03/98  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................          842.97
Outdoor Reg Neg Committee Members,           01/31-02/02/98  Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................        1,471.00
 San Diego, CA.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC.        03/08-03/12/98  Board Mtg..................................................................        7,676.32
                                                                                                                                         ---------------
      Total..........................  ....................  ...........................................................................       34,961.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  National Transportation Safety Board
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
    Question. In fiscal year 1998, the Congress provided three-quarters 
of funding for the salaries and benefits of 32 additional employees. 
Please provide the job description and dates each of the new employees 
was hired.
    Answer. Of the 32 positions, 30 have been filled. Information 
regarding those positions follows.
      office of pipeline and hazardous materials safety (2 hires)
Senior Chemist (11/97)
    Provides authoritative technical information, expertise, and 
investigative services as needed for transportation accidents and 
incidents involving hazardous materials across all modes, and provides 
scientific and technical guidance necessary for evaluating the 
transportation of hazardous materials. Evaluates scientific and 
technical policies related to the transport of hazardous materials 
across all modes; provides technical expertise on the characteristics 
and behavior of materials, (including the physical, chemical and 
toxicological properties of materials and compounds), factors, and 
conditions that affect the behavior of materials in the transportation 
environment, consequences of their release; and, develops technical and 
scientific policy guidance for the office.
Pipeline Accident Investigator (3/98)
    Serves as a Pipeline Accident Investigator with responsibility for 
conducting investigations of pipeline transportation accidents and 
reviewing special pipeline transportation safety studies or 
investigations, evaluates pipeline transportation safety programs, 
exchanges information with other organizations concerned with pipeline 
transportation safety, and reports conclusions and findings for 
acceptance, rejection, modification, or further study.
                  office of railroad safety (4 hires)
Railroad Accident Investigator (Forensics) (1/98)
    Performs independent investigations of regional level railroad/rail 
rapid transit accidents. Assists senior investigators in the 
investigations of railroad and rail rapid transit accidents, and 
applies the principles of forensic science to evaluate the medical and 
injury aspects of the accident. Also investigates and evaluates the 
effectiveness of emergency response procedures in railroad and rail 
rapid transit accidents. Develops the facts, analyzes the information, 
writes the accident report, and proposes safety recommendations.
Railroad Accident Investigator (regional office) (2/98)
    Serves as a Railroad Accident Investigator with responsibility for 
the investigation of selected regional railroad accidents. Incumbent 
may act as a Group Chairman on major railroad accidents or perform as 
the Regional Director in his/her absence. Duties include the 
supervision of parties involved in the onsite investigation of the 
accident, writing the narrative, factual, and analytical reports, and 
recommending remedial action. Incumbent also trains or instructs other 
investigators and performs other assignments to promote railroad 
safety, improve investigative methods, eliminate railroad safety 
hazards, and prevent railroad accidents.
Railroad Accident Investigator (2/98)
    Serves as the Investigator-In-Charge of selected major railroad 
accidents and special investigations. Also serves as Group Chairperson 
on major accident investigations. Duties include the supervision of 
parties involved in the investigation, writing narrative, factual, and 
analytical reports, recommending remedial action, and performing other 
assignments to promote railroad safety, improve investigative methods, 
eliminate railroad safety hazards, and prevent railroad accidents.
Psychologist (formerly titled Railroad Accident Investigator) (1/98)
    Expert in the psychological, physiological, and human engineering/
ergonomics disciplines used in the investigation and analysis of major 
railroad accidents. Independently investigates highly complex major 
human performance related accidents. Develops independent audits and 
data gathering activities at other government agencies and in industry. 
Participates in the preparation of formal accident reports and 
independent development of safety recommendations.
                   office of highway safety (1 hire)
Highway Accident Investigator (Motor Carrier) (1/98)
    Serves as a motor carrier specialist concerned with highway safety 
matters that pertain to motor carrier and passenger carrier operations. 
Supports and implements the operating plan and mission of the office, 
and provides operational counsel and technical assistance in all 
aspects of motor carrier and passenger carrier operations to office 
personnel. Also reviews motor carrier information contained within 
highway related products and provides substantive comments.
                    office of marine safety (1 hire)
Marine Engineer (4/98)
    Serves as an Investigator-in-Charge with recognized expertise in 
marine operations, marine safety, and marine accident investigations. 
Incumbent is responsible for organizing, managing and coordinating the 
investigation of major marine transportation accidents and developing 
and presenting reports with safety recommendations for adoption by the 
Board. May also serve as Group Chairperson. Serves as the Safety Board 
representative in international investigations.
                  office of aviation safety (9 hires)
Air Traffic Control Specialist (10/97)
    Provides specialized support in the investigation of aircraft 
accidents through the deployment of centralized teams; plans and 
conducts analytical studies and tests on operational phases of specific 
accident investigations; develops status reports and accident 
prevention reports; provides technical briefings for the Board, other 
government agencies, and various interested groups; prepares proposed 
Board positions on national and international regulations involving 
safety in air operations; responds to inquiries from Congress, the 
aviation community, and the general public regarding aviation safety 
matters.
Aerospace Engineer (Systems) (11/97)
    Provides engineering expertise on aircraft systems design, 
manufacturing, certification, and maintenance in the investigation of 
air carrier and general aviation accidents and incidents occurring in 
the United States and abroad. Applies forensic engineering techniques 
in directing the on-scene and subsequent testing phases of aircraft 
systems aspects of aircraft accident investigations; also investigates 
and documents records and practices relating to maintenance, 
certification, and manufacturing of aircraft systems in coordination 
with other investigative groups.
Meteorologist (12/97)
    Investigates and analyzes weather-related aspects of aviation 
incidents and accidents. Collects, analyzes, evaluates, and interprets 
meteorological data used to predict weather. Identifies safety issues 
associated with meteorology and its influence on the National 
Transportation System. Also serves as the meteorology group chairman 
for major surface transportation accidents.
Aerospace Engineer (3/98)
    Participates and directs engineering aspects of general aviation 
and air carrier accidents and incidents in aircraft structures and 
materials and their interface with control systems. Serves as Group 
Chairman, documents and analyzes airworthiness issues potentially 
involved in accidents, and develops accident prevention strategies.
Deputy Chief (formerly Aerospace Engineer) (2/98)
    Assists the division chief in directing, supervising, and carrying 
out the responsibilities of the division, including the staffing of 
aviation go-teams with qualified and competent aerospace engineers in 
the airworthiness disciplines, develops appropriately detailed factual 
and analytical reports, and participates in the development of major 
investigation reports, safety recommendations, and other Board 
correspondence.
Air Safety Investigator (region) (3/98)
    Conducts investigations of less complicated aircraft accidents/
incidents and assists in the investigation of complex aircraft 
accidents/incidents not investigated by centralized teams. Prepares 
timely and comprehensive written factual reports of investigations that 
must accurately reflect the findings of the investigation under the 
supervision of a higher grade investigator. Assists in developing facts 
during an investigation which may require the submission of appropriate 
and timely recommendations to preclude possible recurrence of similar 
accidents.
Air Safety Investigator (region) (3/98)
    ASI trainee. Receives developmental assignments from the supervisor 
and accident investigators.
Air Safety Investigator (region) (2/98)
    Assists in the investigations of less complicated aircraft 
accidents/incidents mainly involving general aviation aircraft and air 
carrier accidents/incidents not investigated by centralized teams. 
Provides factual input for written reports and makes recommendations on 
investigation findings to higher grade investigators. Under 
supervisor's instruction or higher grade investigator, assists in the 
development of facts during an investigation which may require the 
submission of appropriate and timely recommendations to preclude 
possible recurrence of similar accidents.
Air Safety Investigator (region) (3/98)
    Conducts investigations of less complicated aircraft accidents/
incidents and assists in the investigation of complex aircraft 
accidents/incidents not investigated by centralized teams. Prepares 
timely and comprehensive written factual reports of investigations that 
must accurately reflect the findings of the investigation under the 
supervision of a higher grade investigator. Assists in developing facts 
during an investigation which may require the submission of appropriate 
and timely recommendations to preclude possible recurrence of similar 
accidents.
                 office of research and engineering (6)
Chemist (Fire Explosion Specialist) (8/97)
    Provides consultative and investigative services as needed to major 
and field investigations in the area of fire and explosion. Collects or 
causes to be collected, factual information about the chemical aspects 
of transportation accidents (forensic chemistry) with particular 
emphasis on the causal factors in fires and explosions. Determines when 
and what forensic chemical tests are required to support accident 
investigations. Monitors these activities and evaluates findings to be 
used in the subsequent analysis and determination of probable cause 
and/or safety recommendations. Prepares factual and analytical reports 
that reflect the pertinent findings in the forensic chemical areas to 
be used in the subsequent analysis and probable cause determination.
Computer Specialist (Network Administrator) (1/98)
    Maintains and troubleshoots Windows NT LAN servers, Windows NT WEB 
servers, firewalls, server peripherals and the computer network for the 
agency. Installs and maintains Windows NT servers. Installs software 
upgrades. Administers users, groups, security and system use policies. 
Administers hardware platforms, manages disk storage. Develops plans 
for growth and recommends hardware purchases to accommodate growth and 
new service development.
Mechanical Engineer (formerly Computer Simulation/Modeling Specialist) 
        (4/98)
    Performs accident investigation functions requiring engineering 
expertise. Travels to the scene on major accident investigations and 
collects physical evidence as needed to determine vehicle motion and 
the underlying causes for that motion. Responsible for readouts of rail 
and highway vehicle recorders using available laboratory equipment and 
computer programs. Writes, documents, tests and debugs computer 
programs used to: process vehicle recorder data, analyze highway 
vehicle paths, analyze train movements, and investigate other phenomena 
related to accident vehicle dynamics. Responsible for the 
reconstruction and simulation of accidents using computer simulation 
software and graphics animation software. Prepares technical reports of 
investigation findings, writes accident prevention recommendations to 
correct safety deficiencies, and responds to inquiries from Congress, 
industry, and the public on transportation safety issues.
Mechanical Engineer (DR--Aviation) (5/98)
    Cooperative Education Program convertee. Position description being 
written.
Mechanical Engineer (DR--Surface) (5/98)
    Cooperative Education Program convertee. Position description to be 
written.

    Electronics Engineer (CVR) (International exchange agreement in 
            progress to utilize an international candidate.)

    Will assist in the operation of the cockpit voice recorder/video 
laboratory and implement investigative procedures regarding aircraft 
incidents and accidents involving cockpit voice records and other 
audio/video recordings. Will read out and analyze cockpit voice 
recorders recovered from aircraft involved in incidents or accidents.
       office of government, public and family affairs (7 hires)
Deputy Director of Family Affairs (6/97)
    Serves as Deputy Director of Family Affairs. Duties include 
managing the Office of Family Affairs; developing and formulating 
policies, programs, and procedures to support families of victims of 
major transportation disasters; coordinating family assistance 
operations within the Safety Board; supporting Federal, state, and 
local agencies, non-profit organizations, transportation organizations, 
and other interested parties; formulating short-term and long-term 
strategic program goals; communicating with victims and their families 
at the incident site, as well as during and after the investigation; 
and evaluating and proposing necessary changes to support family 
assistance plans, procedures, and policies.
5 Family Support Specialists (5/97, 10/97, 11/97, 11/97, and 1/98)
    Assist the Deputy Director of Family Affairs, and each other, in 
coordinating Federal services to the families of victims of aviation 
and other transportation disasters. Serve as a liaison between family 
members and Federal, state, and local agencies, non-profit and 
transportation organizations, and other interested parties. This 
includes assisting in setting up assistance centers and temporary 
morgue operations; communicating with victims and their family members 
during and after the investigation; and planning and coordinating 
sensitive family assistance meetings and events, such as memorial 
services, commemorative events, and attendance at Safety Board 
hearings. Evaluate and propose necessary changes to support family 
assistance plans, procedures, and policies. As directed, compose 
accident updates, letters, and other correspondence to family members, 
government and private organizations, and the general public.
Secretary (12/97)
    Serves as secretary to the Deputy Director of Family Affairs and 
provides administrative assistance to the other members of the 
Government and Public Affairs staff, including the Director of 
Government, Family, and Public Affairs. Possess excellent 
organizational abilities, writing skills, grammar, and editing and 
proofreading skills, and produces high quality products. Uses 
microcomputers, including data base, merge capabilities, and Spread 
Sheet Word Processing software. Communicates clearly and project a 
highly polished professional image.
    Question. Will the Board use the full amount of three-quarters 
funding for salaries for these 32 employees. If not, how much is left 
over?
    Answer. Yes, the Board will use the full amount of three-quarters 
funding for these employees.
    Question. Of the $9,459,000 provided in the fiscal year 1997 
supplemental appropriations bill to reimburse local communities for the 
TWA 800, ValuJet, and Comair crashes, how much has been obligated to 
date, and how much has been denied.
    Answer. During fiscal year 1997, the Board obligated the full 
$9.459 million provided by the Congress to reimburse the State of New 
York and local counties (TWA Flight 800), Dade County, Florida (ValuJet 
Flight 592) and Monroe County, Michigan (Comair Flight 3272). However, 
as a result of reviews of the claims performed for the Board by the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the actual amount of 
reimbursement to these localities will likely be significantly less 
than the amount obligated.
    The DCAA has completed its review of Dade County, Florida, with the 
following results:
  --Claim amount, $3.2m
  --Allowed reimbursable items, $2.2m
    Overtime
    Supplies/Equipment
    Contracts
    Travel
    Other miscellaneous cost directly related to the investigation 
            Overtime
  --Disallowed items, $1.0m
    Regular salaries
    Fringe benefits related to regular salaries
    Other miscellaneous and/or dual compensation items
    The DCAA completed the review of Monroe, Michigan with the 
following results:
  --Claim amount, $303,000
  --Allowed reimbursable items, $169,135
    Medical Examiner and related expenses
    Fire Department/Police Department and Emergency Management expenses
    Supplies
    Other miscellaneous cost directly related to the investigation
  --Disallowed items, $133,791
    Funeral director and non-licensed individuals hourly rates claimed 
            were considered excessive, resulting in a reduction of 
            $58,718
    Cost related to cremations and burials. (NTSB is working with 
            Comair to reimburse the departments directly for these 
            expenses.)
    Regular salaries
    Equipment purchased but not related to the accident investigation
    The DCAA is currently performing the review from the State of New 
York and localities for TWA flight 800 related expenses. We expect that 
review to be completed shortly. It should be noted that Congress also 
provided the Department of Justice with special funding to reimburse 
the State of New York and localities. That Department identified 
approximately $5.3m in regular salaries that would not be considered 
for reimbursement. Using the same procedures and following the intent 
of Public Law 105-18, which provided the Safety Board with 
reimbursement funding, we agree that regular salaries are not to be 
reimbursed. Regular salaries and related fringe benefits would have 
been incurred by the State of New York and the localities even if the 
accident of TWA flight 800 did not happen. The Safety Board will 
forward a copy of the review report when completed by the DCAA.
    Question. The fiscal year 1997 Supplemental Appropriations bill 
required the Chairman of the NTSB and the Secretary of Transportation 
to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations--no 
later than August 1, 1997--on their recommendations on fairly 
allocating victim and wreckage recovery costs to the aviation industry 
and the carriers' underwriters. To date, the Committee has not received 
such a report. Can you please provide a status of this report and a 
date for when it will be completed?
    Answer. The Safety Board and the Department of Transportation are 
working on a preliminary draft of the report. The delay has, in large 
measure, been the result of the difficulty both agencies are having in 
collecting information. The insurance industry has steadfastly refused 
to cooperate, even declining the Board's repeated invitation to have an 
informal discussion regarding the issues at hand.
    With the assistance of a Member of Congress, the Congressional 
Research Service has provided basic information on the airline 
insurance industry. Further, the Department of Transportation has 
prepared a summary of available post-accident costs. We expect to 
provide the Committee with a report no later than July 1, 1998.
    Question. The fiscal year 1997 supplemental appropriations 
legislation allowed $4,877,000 to remain available until expended. 
Please breakdown what this money will be used for and indicate how much 
of this amount will be spent on each activity.
    Answer. The Safety Board carried over all of the $4,877,000 to 
further its investigation of TWA Flight 800. Our plan for fiscal year 
1998 includes the following:
  --TWA Flight 800 Public Hearing--$350,000
  --Quarter Scale Testing--$1,000,000
  --Full Scale Testing/Wiring Examinations/Static Discharging and Fuel 
        Probe Testing/Flight Ground Tests/Laboratory Studies--
        $2,625,000
  --Second Set of Eyes--$377,000
  --Investigation Documentation--$100,000
  --NTSB Operations (travel, overtime, etc.)--$425,000
    Question. Please list all of the changes OMB made to the Board's 
fiscal year 1999 budget request and please include the impact each of 
these changes will have on the board.
    Answer. The following requested items were not approved by the OMB.
    Annualization of fiscal year 1998 Positions ($273,000).--The amount 
provided in the President's budget is not sufficient to cover the 
annualized affect of the positions provided by the Congress in the 
current fiscal year.
    Training ($375,000).--As you may have read, the FAA was recently 
cited by the Department of Transportation's inspector general for lack 
of adequate training for its inspectors. The assistant inspector 
general for auditing was quoted as stating, ``With rapid changes in 
technology, inspectors' effectiveness is diminished without current 
training in the aircraft they are assigned to inspect.'' The Safety 
Board's investigators also must be responsive to changes in both 
transportation technology and safety issues. Both aircraft and other 
transportation vehicles are becoming more and more sophisticated, and 
the Safety Board's technical expertise must be able to keep pace. 
Without the funds requested for training, the Board will be unable to 
provide the crucial training necessary to ensure that our new 
complement of technical/investigative staff is equipped with the tools 
it needs to maintain the high level of expertise and professionalism 
that is vital to the Board's effectiveness.
    Computer Equipment ($738,000).--The requested computer hardware and 
software is instrumental to maintaining the Board's productivity, 
accommodating increases in workload, and maintaining a high standard of 
quality. Experience has demonstrated a maximum four-year useful life 
for desktop and laptop computer hardware, requiring the annual 
replacement/upgrade of 25 percent of these staff computers. Annual 
software maintenance and licensing are also required for each of these 
computers. In addition to providing for the methodical replacement of 
this equipment and software, these funds also will allow the upgrade of 
the Board's Local Area Network and Wide Area Network communications 
hardware and software that are essential to linking the Board's 
headquarters and regional offices.
    Financial Management System ($450,000).--The funds requested for a 
new off-the-shelf integrated financial management system is essential 
to the Board's compliance with the standard general ledger and other 
core financial management system requirements for Federal agencies. The 
Office of Management and Budget initiative is for agencies to acquire 
such modern integrated financial management systems. The Safety Board's 
current system is more than 15 years old and does not comply fully with 
the standards established by the Joint Financial Management Improvement 
Program. The Safety Board, in partnership with the Department of 
Treasury's Financial Management Service, is making a conscious effort 
to comply with this important OMB initiative, but funding must be 
provided to make it happen.
    Employee Compensation Fund ($185,000).--In addition to these 
important investments in the future of the Safety Board, funds were 
requested, in accordance with Department of Labor direction, to cover 
mandatory reimbursement of the Employee's Compensation Fund for the 
direct dollar costs of compensation and medical benefits paid under the 
Federal Employees' Compensation Act.
    Benefits/Staffing ($491,000/3 FTE's).--Since the Board's budget 
request was submitted to OMB, two additional uncontrollable 
requirements have surfaced. The first is $120,000 to cover the net 
increase in benefits costs due to recent changes in the agency 
contributions for FERS and CSRS retirement systems. The second new 
requirement is $371,000 and three labor management relations positions 
necessary to support the Board's newly-elected employee union. These 
positions were requested in our fiscal year 1998 budget submission; 
however, after our OMB hearing it was recommended that we not pursue 
this funding until the Safety Board was sure there would be a union. 
The union is now a reality.

                      Surface Transportation Board
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                   board members' terms and staffing
    Question. How long has the third Board member position been vacant? 
What is the practical effect of a longstanding Board vacancy on policy 
matters and the day-to-day operations of the STB?
    Answer. The third Board member position has been vacant since 
January 1, 1997, upon the termination of former Vice Chairman Simmons' 
appointment and one-year holdover period. While it is important to have 
all Board seats filled as Congress intended, to date, the vacancy has 
not precluded the Board from conducting its business. The Chairman and 
Vice Chairman have worked in a bipartisan, collegial manner to ensure 
that cases and other matters before the Board are resolved or otherwise 
handled as appropriate. With two members, of course, there is always a 
possibility of a disagreement between the members, thus resulting in a 
split vote that might preclude a pending matter from being resolved. 
However, that problem has not occurred as of yet at the Board.
    Question. STB Board member Gus A. Owen's term expired on December 
31, 1997. Was Mr. Owen reappointed for a second term? Does the 
reappointment require Senate confirmation?
    Answer. Vice Chairman Owen's renomination for a 5-year term was 
submitted to Congress on January 29, 1998. His renomination for a term 
expiring December 31, 2002, is awaiting Senate Commerce Committee 
action. Membership on the Board requires full Senate confirmation.
                            funding history
    Question. Please prepare a table displaying the Board's funding 
request, the administration's request, the enacted funding level, and 
the end of the year staffing level for each fiscal year from fiscal 
year 1995 to that requested for fiscal year 1999. Please display both 
appropriated funds and offsetting collections.
    Answer. The following table displays the funding history of the 
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and the Board for fiscal years 
1995 through 1999.

                                                        BUDGET REQUESTS & ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        ICC                                             STB
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                               1995          1996 \1\        1996 \1\          1997            1998            1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board:
    Appropriation.......................................     $45,069,000     $32,892,000  ..............     $12,344,000     $12,753,000     $14,190,000
    Offsetting Collections..............................      $7,300,000      $8,300,000  ..............      $3,000,000      $3,100,000      $2,000,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Budget Request....................................     $52,369,000     $41,192,000  ..............     $15,344,000     $15,853,000  \2\ $16,190,00
                                                                                                                                                       0
                                                         ===============================================================================================
President:
    Appropriation.......................................     $44,429,000     $33,202,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Offsetting Collections..............................      $8,300,000      $8,300,000  ..............     $15,344,000     $14,300,000     $16,000,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Budget Request....................................     $52,729,000     $41,502,000  ..............     $15,344,000     $14,300,000     $16,000,000
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Enacted:
    Appropriation \3\...................................     $33,083,000     $13,379,000      $8,414,000     $12,244,000     $13,850,000
    Offsetting Collections \4\..........................      $7,738,000      $3,200,000        $652,000      $3,000,000      $2,000,000  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Budget Request....................................     $40,821,000     $16,579,000      $9,066,000     $15,244,000     $15,850,000  ..............
                                                         ===============================================================================================
End of Year:
    Staffing Level......................................             402         \5\ 317             132             127             135             135
    FTE Level...........................................             416          \5\ 86             106             131             135             135
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ During fiscal year 1996, the ICCTA was passed, the ICC was eliminated effective December 1, 1995, and the Board was established effective January 1,
  1996. The enacted funding levels for the ICC for fiscal year 1996 reflect ICC operational and termination expenses for one quarter of the fiscal year
  and the Board funding levels for fiscal year 1996 reflect Board operational expenses for three-quarters of the fiscal year.
\2\ The Board's fiscal year 1999 budget request essentially represents the Board's current funding level (for fiscal year 1998) plus inflationary and
  personnel salary increases.
\3\ Enacted appropriations less enacted rescissions.
\4\ Actual offsetting collections. In fiscal year 1997, there was a carryover of $625,031 over the obligational limitation.
\5\ As of December 31, 1995.

                  board request vs. president's budget
    Question. The Board's fiscal year 1999 appropriations request is 
$16,190,000 while the administration's request for the Board is 
$16,000,000. Please discuss what specific activities comprise this 
rather minor delta of $190,000 ($70,000 in ``purchases of goods from 
government accounts, and $120,000 in ``equipment'').
    Answer. The total difference between the Board's and President's 
budget request for fiscal year 1999 is $190,000. Specifically, the 
President's budget provides for a reduction of $70,000 for employee 
training and computer support services, and a deferral of $120,000 for 
the replacement of outdated personal computers, printers, and other 
peripherals.
    Question. Please provide a table contrasting the Board's proposed 
fiscal year 1999 budget request and the OMB passback, by office.
    Answer. Earlier this year, the Board submitted a budget request for 
fiscal year 1999 of $16.190 million and 135 full-time equivalents 
(FTE's) to be funded from appropriations and $2 million in user fee 
collections. This request essentially continues the level and manner of 
funding provided to the Board for fiscal year 1998, and reflects the 
relatively constant workload that is expected. With respect to user fee 
funding, the Board is proposing, in the Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, the 
reauthorization of statutory authority included in the fiscal year 1998 
appropriations law providing that user fees collected pursuant to 31 
U.S.C. 9701 be made available to the Board to offset its appropriation 
request, and that any fees collected in excess of $2 million shall 
remain available until expended, but not available for obligation until 
October 1, 1999.
    The OMB passback provided $15.4 million and 132 FTE's to be funded 
entirely from the collection of user fees. The President's budget 
request provides that the entire operation of the agency be funded from 
the collection of user fees during fiscal year 1999. It requests 135 
FTE's and provides that $16 million of offsetting collections from fees 
collected shall be retained and made available for necessary expenses 
of the agency. Additionally, the budget request provides that any fees 
received in excess of $16 million shall remain available until 
expended, but shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 
1999.
    Due to the small size of the Board, the budget estimates and 
requests are not developed or broken down by office but rather by 
general category of expenditure.
                        rent and utilities costs
    Question. Please compare rental costs at the Board's 1925 K Street, 
N.W. office site to the old Interstate Commerce Commission building. 
What is the difference in total annual rent? What is the cost per 
square foot and total square footage utilized by the Board at each 
site?
    Answer. The rental rate at the old Interstate Commerce Commission 
(ICC) building was $32.59 per net usable square foot. During fiscal 
year 1997, 58,958 net usable square feet was assigned for a total 
annual rental cost of $1,921,608, excluding 5,700 square feet of 
parking space, which was part of the space arrangement at the ICC 
building but which is not part of the lease arrangement at the Board's 
new location.
    The rental rate at the Board's 1925 K Street, N.W. location is 
$26.06 per square foot. During fiscal year 1997, 56,464 square feet of 
space was assigned for an annual rental cost of $1,488,121. Therefore, 
the difference in annual rental cost is $433,487.
    Question. What were the actual amounts billed by GSA for the K 
Street office space in fiscal years 1997 and 1998? What is the 
anticipated rent cost for fiscal year 1999? Is any increase in square 
footage anticipated?
    Answer. The actual rental amount billed by GSA in fiscal year 1997 
was $1,472,112, which included rental payments at the Interstate 
Commerce Commission building for the period of October 1, 1996, through 
March 14, 1997 and at the 1925 K Street, N.W. location for the period 
of March 15, 1997, through September 30, 1997, as well as a GSA rent 
adjustment for the delay in moving the Board to the 1925 K Street, N.W. 
location.
    The actual amount billed in fiscal year 1998, as reflected in the 
first and second quarter billings, is $733,710. Billing statements have 
not been received beyond the second quarter. The anticipated rent cost 
for fiscal year 1999 is $1,517,000. This is based on a 3 percent OMB 
inflation factor over fiscal year 1998 rental rate. There is no 
increase in square footage anticipated.
                  user fees and offsetting collections
    Question. Please display in tabular form the level of anticipated 
user fee income in the Board's fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999 budget 
requests. Please also include columns displaying the President's budget 
assumptions for user fee income in each of these three fiscal years. In 
addition, please display the level of user fee offsets included in the 
appropriations legislation for the Board in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. 
Finally, please include columns displaying the actual amount of 
offsetting user fees collected in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 (both up 
to present, and projected through the end of this fiscal year).
    Answer. The following table displays the offsetting collection of 
user fees for fiscal year 1997 through 1999.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                STB                                    1997            1998            1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Fee Anticipated Income in Budget Request...................      $3,000,000      $3,100,000      $2,000,000
President's Budget Assumptions..................................      15,344,000      14,300,000      16,000,000
User Fee Offsets in Appropriations Language.....................       3,000,000       2,000,000  ..............
Offsetting Collections:
    Actual......................................................   \1\ 3,625,031  \1\ \2\ 662,34  ..............
                                                                                               8
    Projected end of fiscal year................................  ..............  \1\ \3\ 2,265,  ..............
                                                                                             000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These figures include $2,360,400 in fiscal year 1997, and $67,050 in fiscal year 1998, in user fees
  associated with the Conrail acquisition.
\2\ User fees collected 10/1/97-3/31/98.
\3\ This figure includes $966,700 in user fees associated with the proposed Canadian National Railway/Illinois
  Central merger.

    Question. Please detail in tabular form the 1998 user fee update 
schedule, including all fee items or sub-fee items, including both the 
1997 and 1998 fee amounts, with a column showing the amount of 
increase, if any.
    Answer. The 1998 User Fee Update was effective on March 20, 1998. 
The following table displays the fee amounts in the 1997 and 1998 user 
fee schedule and the increased amount of each fee item.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSBMT.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSBMT.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSBMT.017


    Question. Isn't there a good chance that the fees associated with 
the proposed Canadian National Railway/Illinois Central merger 
(announced February 1998) will increase the level of offsetting 
collections substantially in fiscal year 1998? What level of filing 
fees associated with this merger do you estimate will be collected by 
the end of fiscal year 1998?
    Answer. The Board expects to collect $966,700 in user fees 
associated with the proposed Canadian National Railway/Illinois Central 
merger by the end of fiscal year 1998. The Board collects on average 
between an estimated $100,000 and $110,000 in nominal filings per 
month, excluding these one-time user fee collections for significant 
large-fee filings like Class I rail mergers or construction 
applications, which corresponds to approximately $1.2 million in 
nominal filings per year. Therefore, adding the estimated $1.2 million 
in nominal filings to the $966,700 anticipated from that proposed 
merger filing, the Board projects $2.265 million in offsetting 
collections for fiscal year 1998, resulting in a $.265 million 
carryover above the fiscal year 1998 $2 million offsetting collection 
limitation.
    Question. What was the amount of carryover user fees from fiscal 
year 1997 which was available for obligation after October 1, 1997?
    Answer. There was $625,031 in carryover user fees from fiscal year 
1997 available for obligation after October 1, 1997, should the Board's 
offsetting collections fall below $2 million in fiscal year 1998 or 
subsequent years.
    Question. What is the current level of assessed user fees in fiscal 
year 1998? What is anticipated to be assessed in the remainder of this 
fiscal year? Please discuss the reasons for any delta above or below 
the enacted level of $2,000,000 in reimbursables.
    Answer. Under current statutory authority, the Board collects user 
fees for services rendered. The Board has collected $662,348 in user 
fees from October 1997 through March 1998. The Board anticipates 
collecting approximately $1.6 million in user fees for the remainder of 
this fiscal year. The bulk of this remainder will come from $966,700 in 
fees related to the anticipated filing of the Canadian National 
Railway/Illinois Central merger this June. The large one-time fees 
related to this merger will result in a $265,000 increase above the 
enacted level of $2 million in offsetting collections.
                              rulemakings
    Question. Please list all unnecessary and obsolete rulemakings that 
have been rescinded by the Surface Transportation Board in the last 12 
months.
    Answer. The Surface Transportation Board has rescinded the 
following regulations or terminated the following procedures (which has 
removed a number of pages from the Code of Federal Regulations) in the 
last 12 months.
Obsolete Regulations Removed:
    Removal of Obsolete Regs. Concerning Rail Passenger Fare Increases, 
STB Ex Parte No. 624 (STB served June 18, 1997) (removing 49 CFR 1136).
    Commuter Rail Service Continuation Subsidies and Discontinuance 
Notices, STB Ex Parte No. 563 (STB served Aug. 27, 1997) (removing 49 
CFR 1157).
    Removal of Obsolete Motor Passenger Carrier Accounting Regulations, 
STB Ex Parte No. 569 (STB served Sept. 5, 1997) (removing 49 CFR 1206).
    Modifications to the General Provisions of the Board, STB Ex Parte 
No. 568 (STB served Sept. 18, 1997) (removing an obsolete section of 49 
CFR 1000 and obsolete sections of 49 CFR 1001).
    Removal of Misc. Obsolete Regs., STB Ex Parte No. 572 (STB served 
Sept. 29, 1997) (removing 49 CFR 1022, 1030, 1091, 1131, 1143, 1156, & 
1170).
    Technical Amendments Concerning Employee Boards, STB Ex Parte No. 
570 (STB served Sept. 29, 1997) (removing parts of 49 CFR 1011).
Obsolete Proceedings Terminated:
    Petition for Rulemaking--Invoiceless Billing Transactions, Ex Parte 
No. 55 (Sub-No. 95) (STB served Apr. 15, 1997).
    Jurisdiction Over Motor Finance Transactions, Ex Parte No. MC-216 
(STB served July 8, 1997).
Superseded Proposals Withdrawn:
    Rail Gen. Exemption Auth'y--Exemption of Nonferrous Recyclables and 
Railroad Rates on Recyclable Commodities, Ex Parte No. 346 (Sub-No. 36) 
(STB served May 5, 1997).
                      up/sp rail service problems
    Question. Please update the Committee on the current status of the 
Board's service order to address the severe rail service problems UP/SP 
shippers have been experiencing over the last year.
    Answer. The Board's service order (Service Order No. 1518) was 
issued on October 31, 1997, extended and expanded upon twice, and 
remains in effect through August 2, 1998. The service orders have 
focused on providing service options in and around the Houston and Gulf 
Coast area, the original source of the congestion; have directed the 
filing with the Board of voluminous data to monitor the progress of 
service improvements; have mandated specific activities with respect to 
the movement of certain commodities (such as grain); have ordered 
certain actions among carriers (such as dispatching coordination) to 
enhance the operations in and around Houston; and most recently have 
directed the filing of plans by UP/SP for improving the infrastructure 
in the Gulf Coast area. The Board has indicated that it will remain 
involved in this matter until we believe that it has been 
satisfactorily resolved.
    Question. Which shippers have been most severely affected by the 
rail service problems in the West? Please answer in full detail.
    Answer. It is generally agreed that the rail service problems in 
the West had their genesis in the Houston and Gulf Coast area. 
Therefore the Board's service orders have been focused on relieving 
pressure in and around the Houston area. At the same time, the Board 
has taken action with a view toward ensuring that, given the limited 
rail capacity in the West, certain shippers were not inadvertently 
harmed while others were being helped. Thus, the Board's actions were 
intended to help impacted shippers throughout the West.
    In terms of shipper groups particularly affected, the petrochemical 
sector has been hard hit because much of their product is produced in 
the Gulf area. Faced simultaneously with a surge in demand, gridlock, 
and a product storage system that, peculiar to that industry, uses rail 
cars for storage, the petrochemical industry found that the congestion 
at Houston resulted in their inability to satisfy consumer demands or 
have empty cars returned for reloading.
    Other shipping sectors also have been affected at some point during 
that period. For example, grain shippers were impacted during the fall 
harvest period when they were unable to obtain empty cars and ship 
loaded cars in time to meet their commitments; coal shippers and 
electric utilities were frustrated in their inability to ship or build 
up winter stocks of coal; the auto industry was affected by not being 
able to move new automobiles into the market as quickly as it had 
intended; and manifest (general commodity) shippers were affected by 
congestion that dramatically increased the time required for seasonal 
shipments to reach their destinations on time.
    Question. Generally, is the UP/SP western rail service situation 
improving? Please support your response with relevant data.
    Answer. The Board's principal actions to help mitigate the rail 
service crisis have been twofold: (1) to effect operating changes, 
particularly in the Houston and Gulf Coast area, that have allowed 
shippers service alternatives through access to other carriers; and (2) 
to require broad-based weekly reporting by UP/SP that ensures our 
ability to assess improvement and to identify areas where further 
action may be necessary. In addition, we have held public hearings 
seeking input directly from shippers and their representatives, as well 
as from rail labor and other affected parties.
    The most recent weekly reporting shows significant improvement in 
many areas and results of concern in others. For example, the average 
number of rail cars on the UP/SP system dropped from 348,000 in October 
1997 to 327,185 the week of May 1st, as did the number of lines and 
sidings blocked by stalled trains. We believe that this is a good sign, 
as it connotes increased fluidity. Another good sign is that many of 
UP/SP's yards are less congested, allowing them to handle incoming 
trains more promptly. The amount of time trains are held for locomotive 
power or for congestion is decreasing, also suggesting some 
improvement. However, car velocities and cycle times (the time it takes 
loaded cars to reach destination and/or return), particularly for coal 
and grain, remain high, suggesting that there are still significant 
problems to be overcome at certain points in the system. The data 
described above comprise just one part of our overall monitoring 
commitment, which will continue until we believe that the service 
crisis is satisfactorily resolved.
          environmental problems associated with up/sp merger
    Question. What is the current status of Board actions regarding 
mitigation of environmental problems associated with the UP/SP merger 
in Wichita, Kansas?
    Answer. In its decision approving the UP/SP merger, the Board 
required the Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) to conduct a 
special 18-month mitigation study in Wichita, Kansas. This study was to 
focus on further tailoring the environmental mitigation already imposed 
in the decision approving the merger to address the environmental 
impacts on that area from increased train traffic resulting from the 
merger. During the period of the study, there has been a moratorium on 
increased traffic in that area.
    SEA began this mitigation study in Wichita in October 1996. On 
September 15, 1997, SEA issued its Preliminary Mitigation Plan 
addressing the environmental impacts and recommending mitigation 
measures. Following the close of public review and comments, SEA 
received, on November 25, 1997 a request from UP/SP and Wichita/
Sedgwick County to toll the 18-month mitigation study because the 
parties had entered negotiations to seek a private solution to their 
concerns. On December 12, 1997, the Board granted the request to toll 
the mitigation study.
    At this time, the parties are continuing to negotiate and the study 
remains tolled. At such time as the parties reach agreement or 
discontinue negotiations, the Board will take appropriate action.
    Question. What is the current status of Board actions regarding 
mitigation of environmental problems associated with the UP/SP merger 
in Reno, Nevada?
    Answer. In its decision approving the UP/SP merger, the Board 
required the Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) to conduct a 
special 18-month mitigation study in Reno, Nevada. This study was to 
focus on further tailoring the environmental mitigation already imposed 
in the decision approving the merger to address the environmental 
impacts on that area from increased train traffic resulting from the 
merger. The UP tracks in Reno go through a very busy area in downtown 
and are very close to the casinos and hotels in that area. Because of 
the many casinos and hotels, there is a high volume of pedestrian 
traffic in that area. During the period of the study, there has been a 
moratorium on increased traffic in that area.
    SEA began this mitigation study in Reno in October 1996. On 
September 15, 1997, SEA issued its Preliminary Mitigation Plan 
addressing the environmental impacts and recommending mitigation 
measures. Following the close of public review and comments, SEA 
reviewed all the comments, conducted additional analysis, and issued 
its Final Mitigation Plan on February 11, 1998, for public review and 
comment. On February 24, 1998, Reno requested, with which UP concurred 
on February 25, 1998, that SEA toll the 18-month mitigation study for 
eight months because the parties had entered negotiations to seek a 
private solution to their concerns. On March 2, 1998, the Board granted 
the request to toll the mitigation study.
    At this time, the parties are continuing to negotiate and the study 
remains tolled. At such time as the parties reach agreement or 
discontinue negotiations, the Board will take appropriate action.
                         amtrak express traffic
    Question. Please update the Committee on the Board's proceeding to 
determine the nature and extent of the duty of UP/SP to allow Amtrak to 
use its tracks for the carriage of express traffic. When is a final 
decision anticipated?
    Answer. The Board expects to issue a decision by the end of May.
    Question. Please describe fully the current state of affairs. Is 
Amtrak limited to nine express cars per train while the decision is 
pending across its national system, or are such limitations imposed 
only while operating on UP/SP owned track? Have any other railroads 
objected to Amtrak's express traffic service?
    Answer. In accordance with the law, Amtrak came to the Board for 
relief because it could not agree with UP/SP as to the terms of its 
operations over the UP/SP system, and specifically what it could carry 
over the UP/SP system. Thus, the Board imposed interim terms pending 
resolution by the Board of the dispute. More specifically, the Board's 
September 30, 1997 order in Application of the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)--Union Pacific Railroad 
Company and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, STB Finance Docket No. 
33469 (Amtrak/Express), stated that, except where operationally 
infeasible, UP/SP may not limit Amtrak to less than 18 cars per train, 
including 9 express cars per train, which was the status quo agreed to 
by the parties.
    Amtrak did not seek similar interim relief from the Board relating 
to Amtrak's dealings with any other carriers, and the Board issued no 
order governing those dealings. However, in the Amtrak Express case, 
the Association of American Railroads, on behalf of its member 
railroads, opposed various aspects of Amtrak's proposed definitions of 
express. In addition, major Class I railroads filed individual comments 
stating opposition to various aspects of Amtrak's proposed definition 
of express.
                         csx-ns-conrail merger
    Question. It is the Committee's understanding that the Board's 
final decision on the CSX-NS-Conrail merger will be served on July 23, 
1998. Please summarize the remaining outstanding issues requiring Board 
decisions in connection with the transaction.
    Answer. In accordance with the procedural schedule established in 
this proceeding, the Board will serve its final decision on the merits 
on July 23, 1998. The vast majority of issues will be addressed 
substantively in the final decision. Regarding procedural and 
interlocutory matters that require prompt attention, the Board has 
addressed, and will continue, to address as necessary such issues in 
decisions served prior to the final decision on the merits. Already, 
the Board has issued close to 80 decisions in this proceeding 
addressing many procedural and interlocutory matters. In addition, the 
Board plans to issue a decision in early May setting forth the 
participants' time allotments for the upcoming oral argument scheduled 
in June in this proceeding.
           canadian national railway-illinois central merger
    Question. In February, the Canadian National Railway (CN) and the 
Illinois Central (IC) announced a merger agreement wherein CN will 
acquire IC, a transaction with an approximate equity value of $2.4 
billion. What is the Board's schedule for consideration of this pending 
merger?
    Answer. A timetable has not yet been established for the STB 
Finance Docket No. 33556 proceeding. In a joint notice of intent filed 
on February 12, 1998, CN and IC indicate that they are intending to 
file a control application in this proceeding on or about June 12, 
1998. Typically, prior to the filing of a merger/control application, 
the prospective applicants file a proposed procedural schedule with the 
Board, which the Board then publishes in the Federal Register to 
solicit public comments. These comments are considered in the Board's 
adoption of a procedural schedule. If the application filing is 
complete, a final procedural schedule will be published in the Federal 
Register as part of the Board's notice of acceptance of the application 
within 30 days of the filing of the application. However, as of yet, 
the applicants have not filed a proposed procedural schedule, and thus 
the Board has taken no action in this regard.
    Question. Please summarize the Board's process benchmarks for a 
Class I railroad merger.
    Answer. Pursuant to statutory requirements under 49 U.S.C. 11323-
25, the Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1180 sets forth the information 
to be filed and the procedures to be followed in major consolidation 
transactions. The basic ``benchmarks'' include the following:
  --Unless waived, applicants must file a prefiling notification 
        between 3-6 months prior to the proposed filing of an 
        application involving a major transaction. Federal Register 
        notice must be published within 30 days of receipt of the 
        applicants' notice.
  --Then the application is filed. If an application is accepted as 
        complete, Federal Register notice of acceptance must be 
        published within 30 days of the filing of the application. The 
        publication shall indicate the applicable time limits for 
        processing the application. If an application is not complete, 
        a decision rejecting it must be served within 30 days of the 
        filing of the application.
  --Once the process of evaluating the proposed merger begins, by 
        statute, the Board must conclude the evidentiary proceeding no 
        later than 1 year after the publication of the notice of 
        acceptance. The Board may schedule an oral argument and/or 
        voting conference at its discretion.
  --By statute, the Board must issue a final decision on the merits no 
        later than the 90th day after the date on which the evidentiary 
        proceeding is concluded.
          reauthorization of the surface transportation board
    Question. Please update the Committee on the status of STB's 
reauthorization. Has the administration proposed legislation? (If so, 
please include a copy for the record.) Where are the House and Senate 
authorizing committees in this process?
    Answer. S. 1802, the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization 
Act of 1998, was introduced by Senator McCain on March 19, 1998, and is 
cosponsored by Senators Hollings, Hutchison, Inouye, Lott, Ford, 
Stevens, and Warner. S. 1802 would reauthorize the Board for 3 years at 
the existing funding and resource levels. On March 31, 1998, the Board 
testified at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and 
Merchant Marine, concerning reauthorization.
    On March 12, 1998, the Board testified at a hearing before the 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on 
Railroads, concerning reauthorization and specifically resource needs. 
The Subcommittee on Railroads held a further hearing on the matter on 
April 21, 1998, specifically focusing on the financial health of the 
rail industry. On May 6, 1998, the Board testified before the 
Subcommittee on reauthorization and specifically railroad inter-carrier 
transactions, line constructions, and line abandonments. On May 13, 
1998, the Board will testify on reauthorization, focusing specifically 
on rail rates, access, and remedies.
    The Administration has not as of yet submitted reauthorization 
legislation, although it has informally, through the Secretary of 
Transportation, expressed its support for the Board's reauthorization.
                            captive shippers
    Question. Please describe the Board's April 17, 1998 decision to 
consider eliminating product and geographic competition from the market 
dominance analysis.
    Answer. In its decision in Review of Rail Access and Competition 
Issues, STB Ex Parte No. 575 (STB served Apr. 17, 1998), the Board 
announced that it would reexamine certain aspects of the current 
regulatory regime in the context of today's more consolidated railroad 
industry, particularly those concerning the availability of regulatory 
relief. At the Ex Parte 575 hearings, shippers complained that the 
examination of product and geographic competition--which are now 
considered in addition to intramodal and intermodal competition--has 
transformed the threshold market dominance phase of a rail-rate 
complaint into a complex antitrust-style case of its own, and, as a 
result, has placed an undue obstacle on a shipper's ability to pursue 
rate relief.
    In its decision, the Board observed that the railroads' aggressive 
use of the discovery process may be partly responsible, and it 
referenced a decision issued that day in an individual rate case where 
the Board acted to ensure that a carrier--which must identify any 
product and geographic competition and prove its effectiveness--not 
shift those burdens onto a complainant-shipper through overreaching 
discovery requests. The Board also observed that its predecessor, the 
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), had initially declined to include 
product and geographic competition as factors in the market dominance 
because they would unduly complicate rate proceedings. The ICC later 
reversed course, concluding that consideration of these issues would be 
manageable, but placed upon the carrier the burden of identifying such 
competition and proving its effectiveness.
    Given the shippers' continuing litigation difficulties with these 
matters more than a decade later, the Board determined that it should 
consider removing product and geographic competition as factors in 
market dominance determinations, and it has now commenced a proceeding 
to do so. Market Dominance Determinations--Product and Geographic 
Competition, STB Ex Parte No. 627 (STB served Apr. 29, 1998) (copy 
attached). Comments on the proposal are due May 29, 1998; replies are 
due June 29, 1998.
                      service date: april 29, 1998
                      department of transportation
                         [stb ex parte no. 627]
  market dominance determinations--product and geographic competition
    AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
    ACTION: Notice of Proposal to Eliminate Product and Geographic 
Competition From Consideration in Market Dominance Determinations.
    SUMMARY: Pursuant to its decision in Review of Rail Access and 
Competition Issues, STB Ex Parte No. 575 (STB served Apr. 17, 1998), 
the Board is instituting a proceeding to consider removing product and 
geographic competition as factors in market dominance determinations in 
railroad rate proceedings. The Board requests that persons intending to 
participate in this proceeding notify the agency of that intent. A 
separate service list will be issued based on the notices of intent to 
participate that the Board receives.
    DATES: Notices of intent to participate in this proceeding are due 
May 12, 1998. Comments on this proposal are due May 29, 1998. Replies 
are due June 29, 1998.
    ADDRESSES: An original plus 12 copies of all comments and replies, 
referring to STB Ex Parte No. 627, must be sent to the Office of the 
Secretary, Case Control Unit, ATTN: STB Ex Parte No. 627, Surface 
Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001.
    Copies of the written comments will be available from the Board's 
contractor, D.C. News and Data, Inc., located in Room 210 in the 
Board's building. D.C. News can be reached at (202) 289-4357. The 
comments will also be available for viewing and self copying in the 
Board's Microfilm Unit, Room 755.
    In addition to an original and 12 copies of all paper documents 
filed with the Board, the parties shall submit their pleadings, 
including any graphics, on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted for 
WordPerfect 7.0 (or in a format readily convertible into WordPerfect 
7.0). All textual material, including cover letters, certificates of 
service, appendices and exhibits, shall be included in a single file on 
the diskette. The diskettes shall be clearly labeled with the filer's 
name, the docket number of this proceeding, STB Ex Parte No. 627, and 
the name of the electronic format used on the diskette for files other 
than those formatted in WordPerfect 7.0. All pleadings submitted on 
diskettes will be posted on the Board's website (www.stb.dot.gov). The 
electronic submission requirements set forth in this notice supersede, 
for the purposes of this proceeding, the otherwise applicable 
electronic submission requirements set forth in the Board's 
regulations. See 49 CFR 1104.3(a), as amended in Expedited Procedures 
for Processing Rail Rate Reasonableness, Exemption and Revocation 
Proceedings, STB Ex Parte No. 527, 61 FR 52710, 711 (Oct. 8, 1996), 61 
FR 58490, 58491 (Nov. 15, 1996).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A copy of each diskette submitted to the Board should be 
provided to any other party upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565-1600. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695.]
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In STB Ex Parte No. 575, the Board 
conducted two days of informational hearings, on April 2 and 3, 1998, 
to examine issues of rail access and competition in today's railroad 
industry, and the statutory remedies and agency regulations and 
procedures that relate to those matters. As a result of those hearings, 
we announced, inter alia, that we would commence a proceeding to 
consider eliminating the product and geographic competition factors of 
our market dominance guidelines in cases challenging the reasonableness 
of rail rates.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The current market dominance guidelines are set forth in 
Product and Geographic Competition, 2 I.C.C.2d 1, 20-22 (1985) (Market 
Dominance III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under 49 U.S.C. 10707, the Board can entertain a challenge to the 
reasonableness of a rail rate only if we first find that the rail 
carrier has market dominance over the traffic to which the rate 
applies, that is, that there is no effective competition for that 
traffic. In making that determination, we now consider four forms of 
competition that may effectively constrain the carrier's pricing: 
intramodal competition (whether the shipper could obtain the 
transportation service that it needs from other railroads); intermodal 
competition (whether the shipper could obtain service by another 
transportation mode); product competition (whether the shipper can use 
a suitable substitute product that can be acquired without relying on 
the services of the same carrier); and geographic competition (whether 
the shipper can obtain the product it needs from a different source 
and/or by shipping its goods to a different destination using another 
carrier). Shippers have the burden of showing that there is no 
effective intramodal and intermodal competition; carriers have the 
burden of identifying any product and geographic competition and 
showing its effectiveness.
    At the Ex Parte 575 hearings, shippers complained about the 
difficulties associated with seeking rate relief from the Board today, 
particularly the complexity and burden of litigating issues of product 
and geographic competition, issues that they charge have transformed 
the threshold market dominance phase of a rail rate complaint into a 
full-blown antitrust-style case of its own. Shippers regard product and 
geographic competition issues as major, undue litigation obstacles that 
discourage captive shippers from even seeking regulatory relief from 
unreasonably high rates in both large and small rates cases. 
Accordingly, consistent with our determination in Ex Parte 575 to 
reexamine certain aspects of our current regulatory regime in the 
context of today's more consolidated rail industry--particularly those 
that concern the availability of regulatory relief--we are instituting 
this proceeding to consider eliminating product and geographic 
competition from our market dominance analysis.
    We note that our predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission 
(ICC), initially concluded that consideration of product and geographic 
competition issues would complicate rate proceedings unduly. Special 
Procedures for Making Findings of Market Dominance, 353 I.C.C. 875, 
905-06, modified, 355 I.C.C. 12 (1976) (Market Dominance I), aff'd in 
relevant part sub nom. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. ICC, 580 F.2d 623 
(D.C. Cir. 1978). The ICC subsequently reversed course and decided that 
consideration of these issues would be manageable. Market Dominance 
Determinations, 365 I.C.C. 118, 127-31 (1981) (Market Dominance II), 
aff'd sub nom. Western Coal Traffic League v. United States, 719 F.2d 
772 (5th Cir. 1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 953 (1984). 
Later, recognizing that it is inherently ``much more difficult'' for 
shippers to prove the ineffectiveness of these factors than of 
intramodal and intermodal competition, the ICC placed upon the 
railroads the burden of both identifying any product and geographic 
competition and demonstrating the effectiveness of such competition in 
individual cases. Market Dominance III, 2 I.C.C.2d at 15.
    The comments presented in the Ex Parte 575 hearings suggest, 
however, that, even without bearing the burden of proof on these 
issues, shippers find that the product and geographic competition 
inquiry remains an imposing burden upon their ability to prosecute rail 
rate complaints. Aggressive use of the discovery process may be partly 
responsible for the heavy burdens associated with the inquiry into 
product and geographic competition, and we have recently taken action 
to prevent a rail carrier from effectively shifting those burdens onto 
a complaining shipper through unsupported and/or overreaching discovery 
demands. FMC Wyoming Corp. et al. v. Union Pac. R.R., STB Docket No. 
42022 (STB served Apr. 17, 1998). However, curbing individual instances 
of discovery abuses may not be sufficient to address the shippers' 
concerns. Therefore, we are instituting this proceeding to obtain 
public comment on whether we should eliminate product and geographic 
competition from consideration altogether.
    Any person that wishes to participate as a party of record in this 
matter must notify us of this intent by May 12, 1998. In order to be 
designated a party of record, a person must satisfy the filing 
requirements outlined in the ADDRESSES section. We will then compile 
and issue a service list. Copies of comments and replies must be served 
on all persons designated on the list as a party of record. Comments on 
the proposal are due May 29, 1998; replies are due June 29, 1998.
    A copy of this decision is being served on all persons on the 
service list in Ex Parte No. 575. This decision will serve as notice 
that persons who were parties of record in the Ex Parte 575 proceeding 
will not be placed on the service list in the Ex Parte 627 proceeding 
unless they notify us of their intent to participate therein.
    The Board preliminarily certifies that the proposal to eliminate 
product and geographic competition from its market dominance analysis, 
if adopted, would not have a significant effect on a substantial number 
of small entities. While the proposal, if adopted, may ease the burdens 
on those prosecuting rate complaints, we do not expect it to affect a 
substantial number of small entities. The Board, however, seeks 
comments on whether there would be effects on small entities that 
should be considered.
    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
    Decided: April 28, 1998.
    By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Owen.

                                        Vernon A. Williams,
                                                         Secretary.

    Question. Please list any instances in the last two years when the 
Board has heard a rate challenge based on the determination of market 
dominance. What was the outcome in each of these ``captive shipper'' 
rate challenges?
    Answer. During the past two years, the Board devoted significant 
resources to addressing matters related to the rates and services that 
the Nation's railroads provide to captive shippers. The Board has 
jurisdiction to examine the reasonableness of a railroad's common 
carriage rates, but only after finding that a complaining shipper is 
captive to that railroad (i.e., the carrier has market dominance over 
the traffic involved).\1\ Market dominance refers to ``an absence of 
effective competition from other rail carriers or modes of 
transportation for the transportation to which a rate applies.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 10701(d), 10707(b) and (c).
    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 10707(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To assess whether rates are reasonable, the Board uses the 
``constrained market pricing'' (CMP) guidelines whenever possible.\3\ 
Those guidelines establish various constraints on a railroad's ability 
to price differentially. The most commonly used constraint is the 
``stand-alone cost'' (SAC) test. Under the SAC test, a railroad may not 
charge a shipper more than it would cost to build and operate a 
hypothetical new railroad that would be specifically tailored to serve 
a selected traffic group (including the complainant's traffic) 
efficiently. This test was used to resolve several rate complaints 
during the past two years and is being used to evaluate the 
reasonableness of rates in several more ongoing cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide, 1 I.C.C. 520 (1985), aff'd, 
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Atchison T.&S.F. Ry., No. 41185 (STB 
served July 29, 1997), modified (STB served April 17, 1998), the Board, 
using the SAC test, found that the rail rates charged by the Atchison, 
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway for carrying coal from a mine near Gallup, 
New Mexico to the Cholla electrical generating plant at Joseph City, 
Arizona were unreasonably high. The Board ordered the railroad to 
reduce the rate (by approximately 40 percent) and to pay damages (in 
excess of $25 million) to the shippers involved.
    In McCarty Farms, Inc. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., No. 37809 (STB 
served Aug. 20, 1997), the SAC test was used to evaluate rail rates 
charged for transporting export wheat and barley from Montana to ports 
in the Pacific Northwest. The evidence in this case failed to show that 
the hypothetical railroad postulated by the shippers could earn 
sufficient revenues to fully cover all its costs. Thus, the Board 
concluded that the challenged rates had not been shown to be 
unreasonable.
    In West Texas Utilities Co. v. Burlington Northern R.R., No. 41191 
(STB served May 3, 1996), pet. to reopen denied (STB served June 25, 
1996), after determining that the Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) had 
market dominance over the transportation of coal between Gillette, WY 
and Vernon, TX, the SAC test was again used to determine that the rates 
being charged were unreasonably high. The Board ordered BN to pay $11 
million in reparations and limited the future rates that BN could 
charge to 180 percent of the carrier's variable cost of providing the 
transportation.
    While the CMP guidelines provide the most economically sound 
procedures for evaluating the reasonableness of rail rates, a rate 
challenge using CMP (particularly SAC) can be quite complex, detailed 
and expensive. Thus, CMP can be impractical to use where the amount of 
money at issue is not great enough to justify the expense of such an 
evidentiary presentation. In response to the directive in the ICC 
Termination Act of 1995 to develop a simplified, alternative procedure 
to CMP,\4\ the Board adopted simplified guidelines that employ three 
revenue-to-variable cost benchmarks as starting points for a case-by-
case reasonableness analysis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(3).
    \5\ Rate Guidelines--Non-Coal Proceedings, Ex Parte No. 347 (Sub-
No. 2) (STB served Dec. 31, 1996), S.T.B. (1996), pet. for judicial 
review pending sub nom., Association of Am. Railroads v. Surface 
Transp. Bd., No. 97-1020 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 10, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Board tentatively applied the simplified guidelines, in South-
West R.R. Car Parts Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., No. 40073 (STB served 
Dec. 31, 1996), to a rate complaint that had been held in abeyance 
pending adoption of the simplified procedures. Upon reviewing the 
available revenue-to-variable cost benchmarks, the Board preliminarily 
concluded that, based on the specific facts of that case, the rates 
charged were not out of line with the carrier's revenue requirements, 
nor disproportionately high as compared to other traffic of its type, 
and thus were not unreasonably high. That initial conclusion was never 
made final, however, because of statements by the shipper related to 
market dominance that raised serious doubts about the Board's 
jurisdiction over the case.\6\ The case was ultimately dismissed at the 
request of the parties, who settled their dispute.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Southwest Railroad Car Parts Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., No. 
40073 (STB served Feb. 20, 1998).
    \7\ Southwest Railroad Car Parts Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., No. 
40073 (STB served Apr. 9, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. Please update the Committee on any proposed legislation 
that addresses the issue of market dominance and shipper protection.
    Answer. S. 1429, introduced by Senator Rockefeller, and cosponsored 
by Senators Burns, Dorgan, Breaux, and Roberts, would change current 
law by making it easier for a shipper to show that a railroad has 
market dominance, and thus that the shipper needs regulatory 
protection. S. 1429 would also change the way in which rates are 
regulated by requiring railroads to quote rates for short segments of 
through movements, and allowing those short rates to be challenged 
separately.
                           competitive access
    Question. Please cite specific instances encountered in the Board's 
oversight of the UP/SP merger where there were quality of service 
deficiencies that could not be addressed due to competitive access 
regulations that set an overly-stringent burden of proof.
    Answer. I am aware of no specific instances in which quality of 
service issues associated with the rail emergency in the West could not 
be addressed because the burden of proof under the competitive access 
regulations was too great. In the Service Order No. 1518 proceeding, 
the Board issued unprecedented emergency service orders that, among 
other things, made substantial changes to the way in which service is 
provided in and around the Houston area (the center of the service 
problems). Essentially, the service orders, which extend until August 
2, 1998, sought to relieve some of the pressure on rail service to 
Houston in general, and on UP/SP in particular, by routing traffic 
around Houston and by authorizing other carriers to handle UP/SP 
traffic moving through the city. They also required extensive railroad 
data reporting to help the Board and affected parties evaluate the 
progress of the service recovery. Although various other remedies were 
suggested, no access requests were filed under the competitive access 
rules.
    In taking action to address the rail service emergency, the Board's 
objective has been to do good without creating harm. The Board 
recognizes that government cannot run private businesses as well as 
private businesses can run themselves, and that government is not, and 
should not be, in the business of running railroads; thus, the Board's 
actions were designed to be focused, balanced, and constructive without 
undermining ongoing private sector efforts to fix the problems, and 
without inadvertently degrading the service to some shippers to upgrade 
the service to others. The Board is pleased that, along with the major 
modifications that it directed to the service provided in the 
Southwest, its involvement has spawned important private-sector 
initiatives including the recent agreement by UP/SP and Burlington 
Northern Santa Fe to better coordinate service and facilities and 
responsibilities in the Houston area, and UP/SP's announced commitment 
to expend significantly more to upgrade infrastructure in the Gulf 
Coast area. Although the emergency in the West is not entirely 
resolved, the Board has been a positive force, imposing appropriate 
government mandates while promoting needed private-sector resolution.
    This is not to suggest that the Board's competitive access 
regulations should not be further reviewed, or that the Board should 
not establish new regulations to address service inadequacies. As you 
are probably aware, at the request of Senators McCain and Hutchison, 
the Board received substantial written testimony and conducted two days 
of informational hearings, on April 2 and 3, 1998, to examine issues of 
rail access and competition in today's railroad industry. The Board 
issued a decision in Review of Rail Access and Competition Issues, STB 
Ex Parte No. 575 (STB served Apr. 17, 1998), reviewing the testimony; 
directing discussions among railroads, shippers, and rail employees to 
address several issues, including competitive access issues; and 
identifying certain areas in which the Board itself will propose 
remedial action. In this regard, in the very near future, I expect the 
Board to issue a decision proposing rule changes that will permit the 
agency to better address service inadequacies. For your information, a 
copy of the decisions in Ex Parte No. 575 are attached.
                      service date--april 17, 1998
                 surface transportation board decision
                          stb ex parte no. 575
              review of rail access and competition issues
                        decided: april 16, 1998
BY THE BOARD:
    At the request of Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation and Merchant Marine, the Board conducted two days of 
informational hearings, on April 2 and 3, 1998, to examine issues of 
rail access and competition in today's railroad industry. After 
reviewing both the written statements and oral testimony presented by 
over 60 witnesses, we have decided to pursue certain issues in the 
manner described in this decision.
Overview
    There is no dispute that the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 (Staggers 
Act), as implemented and administered first by the Interstate Commerce 
Commission (ICC) and now by the Board, has revitalized American 
railroads. Whether the railroads have improved their financial 
condition enough or too much, and at the expense of rail-dependent 
shippers, are issues of ongoing debate that were not resolved by the 
hearings. What the hearings did clearly show, however, is that there is 
widespread discontent today among those who use rail service. At the 
hearings, shippers complained of inadequate service and higher rates, 
regulatory remedies that they regard as more theoretical than real, and 
regulatory processes that they view as burdensome, costly, and 
unresponsive.
    While the Staggers Act was successful in spurring the railroads' 
economic recovery, at the core of shippers' complaints is their concern 
that the railroad industry is now dominated by a handful of large, 
Class I railroads, and as a result, shippers that are dependent on rail 
service increasingly lack competitive options. Shippers assert that, 
while the Staggers Act was meant to revive a failing industry and 
enable it to earn adequate revenues, Congress did not intend to thwart 
the equally important statutory goal that, to the maximum extent 
possible, competition should drive the railroads' economic recovery. 
The shippers' view is that, whether intentionally or not, 
implementation of the Staggers Act has met the former goal, but not the 
latter. The various recommendations for change made by the shippers at 
the Board hearings are intended to address this concern, and certain of 
the regulatory changes being proposed are embodied in S. 1429, 
legislation introduced by Senator Rockefeller and co-sponsored by 
Senators Burns and Dorgan.
    Carriers take the position that the problems shippers face today 
are not structural but operational, highlighted by ongoing service 
failures in the West, and the railroad industry has pledged to re-
examine with shippers the adequacy of current remedies designed to 
address service failures. The railroads argue that some of the proposed 
shipper solutions to the concerns expressed about competition would 
simply transfer wealth from carriers to shippers, and that, while 
access may produce lower rates for the short term, the various ``open 
access'' remedies shippers seek would, if adopted, ultimately undo the 
gains achieved by the Staggers Act. The railroads argue that reducing 
their earnings would deprive carriers of funds needed to replace 
existing rail facilities and to invest in new infrastructure required 
to resolve service problems such as those recently experienced in the 
West and to meet added service demands in a growing economy.\1\ The 
railroads further maintain that existing remedies can address any 
pricing and competitive abuses, and that shippers have not explained 
how new remedies intended to inject more competition into the rail 
industry would ensure the industry of the revenues necessary to make 
the needed infrastructure and capacity investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council (RSTAC), 
in its recently released ``White Paper,'' recognized the importance of 
capacity and infrastructure investment to ensuring a rail network 
responsive to the needs of its customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The railroads' position is that, because they are part of a highly 
capital intensive industry whose marginal costs decline as use of its 
plant increases, railroads cannot be regulated under a ``perfect 
competition'' model. Instead, because much, but not all, of the 
railroads' traffic base faces competition from other modes, railroads 
must be able to ``differentially price'' their services based upon 
demand--that is, they must recover the substantial joint and common 
costs of their networks disproportionately from their captive 
traffic.\2\ In this regard, we note that many of the shippers at the 
hearings did not dispute the continuing need for some sort of demand-
based differential pricing, and that no party at the hearings showed 
how the more aggressive access remedies--designed to produce lower 
rates and conform the industry more closely to a perfect competition 
model--would permit railroads to recover sufficient revenues to cover 
system costs and support reinvestment in the rail facilities that 
shippers require.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Inherent in the rail industry cost structure are large amounts 
of joint and common costs that cannot be attributed to particular 
traffic. Because railroads, under the current system, serve a mix of 
competitive and captive traffic, a carrier cannot recover an equal 
portion of those unattributable costs from all traffic. Accordingly, it 
has been generally accepted that a railroad must price its traffic 
differentially so as to recover a greater percentage of its 
unattributable costs from traffic with a greater demand for (dependency 
on) rail transportation. Under demand-based differential pricing, 
shippers with greater transportation alternatives are offered lower 
markups to keep their traffic (and their contribution to the carrier's 
unattributable costs) on the rail network. As a result of this form of 
pricing, captive shippers may actually pay lower rates than would be 
necessary if competitive traffic were driven from the rail system by a 
purely cost-based pricing system. See Coal Rate Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d 
520, 5260927 (1985), aff'd sub nom. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United 
States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987).
    \3\ The shape and condition of the rail system that open access 
would produce is a significant issue that was not resolved at the 
hearings. The shippers assume that the replacement of differential 
pricing by purely competitive pricing would reduce the rates paid by 
shippers. The railroads, by contrast, would argue that, because their 
traffic base would shrink, the rates paid by those shippers that would 
continue to receive service would actually increase, even as overall 
revenues received by railroads would decline, because the overall 
traffic base from which costs would be recovered would be reduced. More 
specifically, carriers could be expected to seek to maintain an 
adequate rate of return by cutting their costs, which could include the 
shedding of unprofitable lines. Thus, it is quite possible that open 
access would produce a smaller rail system (although not necessarily a 
degraded one) that would serve fewer and a different mix of customers 
than are served today, with different types of, and possibly more 
efficient but more selectively provided, service.
    We leave open to public discussion the issue of whether that type 
of a rail system, which might not serve shippers of less desirable 
traffic, would better serve the interest of shippers, labor, and the 
public generally. But we note that the industry's ability to earn 
revenue sufficient to maintain the existing extent of rail service does 
appear to depend to some degree on the use of differential pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the other hand, the railroads have not satisfactorily addressed 
the shippers' basic complaints: that the rail industry has changed 
dramatically since 1980 as a result of significant railroad 
consolidations, system rationalizations, and greater carrier pricing 
and routing discretion. Although these changes have contributed to the 
efficiencies, cost savings, and improved earnings necessary to sustain 
the industry, cumulatively the result has been a significantly more 
consolidated industry in which competitive options for rail-dependent 
shippers have not been expanded. This increasing consolidation within 
the industry, combined with the difficulties that many shippers 
perceive in obtaining relief through the regulatory system, leave too 
many shippers feeling that they have no leverage and no avenue of 
relief. In short, the shippers charge that, eighteen years after 
passage of the Staggers Act, the regulatory system is not functioning 
as intended; what has resulted, they claim, is a highly concentrated 
rail industry that is generally pleased with the present regulatory 
scheme, and a group of rail-dependent shippers, which our regulation is 
meant to safeguard, that feels unprotected and broadly discontented.
    Whether seeking better service, better prices, or both, dozens of 
rail-dependent shippers and their trade associations appeared at the 
hearings to voice those sentiments. The railroad industry asserts that 
many shippers are largely satisfied with present-day rail service, and 
certain intermodal shippers--which ship highly competitive traffic--
voiced their support for the regulatory status quo at the hearings. 
However, no rail-dependent shippers or shipper groups participated to 
express satisfaction with the present state of rail service. The Board 
cannot ignore the pleas of those many shippers that are concerned with 
the present state of affairs.
    It is thus clear that we have reached a regulatory crossroads. 
Neither continuation of the status quo nor the immediate adoption of 
the more drastic measures suggested by some shippers (measures which, 
if not carefully implemented, risk completely undoing the progress made 
towards a healthy national railroad system capable of meeting 
customers' service needs) seems appropriate at this juncture. 
Therefore, we must take a careful, measured approach. We will start by 
accepting the offers made at the hearings by both rail industry and 
shipper representatives to reexamine certain aspects of our current 
regulatory scheme.\4\ We will also institute appropriate rulemaking 
proceedings to re-examine other issues that we believe we can address 
now. Finally, we intend to report appropriately to Congress on the 
outcome of the hearings and our proposed administrative initiatives, 
and discuss in that report other possible actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Initial reliance on negotiations among the interest groups that 
are directly affected by our regulatory policies is neither 
inappropriate nor without precedent. In Ex Parte No. 456, The Staggers 
Rail Act of 1980--Conference of Interested Parties, the ICC established 
a forum outside of the agency's purview to encourage railroads and 
shippers to discuss and negotiate solutions to disputes arising from 
the implementation of the Staggers Act, and to submit proposals for the 
agency's considerations. Our competitive access regulations, 49 CFR 
1144 et seq., discussed infra, are a product of that process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We turn now to the specific issues that we believe immediately can 
and should be addressed administratively.
Revenue Adequacy
    Congress has directed the Board to allow rail carriers to earn 
``adequate'' revenues and to maintain standards and procedures for 
measuring such revenue levels. 49 U.S.C. 10101(3), 10704(a)(2). In 
implementing those directives, the ICC defined adequate revenues as 
those that provide a railroad a rate of return on net investment equal 
to the current cost of capital,\5\ and the Board has continued to 
employ that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Standards for Railroad Revenue Adequacy, 364 I.C.C. 803 (1981), 
aff'd sub nom. Bessemer & Lake Erie R. Co. v. United States, 691 F.2d 
1104 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1110 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the hearings, several shipper interests asserted, as others have 
in the past, that the cost-of-capital standard, under which only a few 
Class I railroads have been found to have ``adequate'' revenues, fails 
to reflect the railroads' true, robust financial posture.\6\ They argue 
that other financial measures--such as credit-worthiness, return on 
equity, or market-to-book value--show an industry that is doing quite 
well financially. The railroads, on the other hand, defend the 
continued use of the cost-of-capital standard, pointing to recent Wall 
Street reports that have questioned the industry's long-term viability 
in light of returns on investment less than that amount. At the 
hearings, representatives of both railroads and shippers advocated 
referring this issue to one or more disinterested expert economists 
with no preconceived position on the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ There seems to be a mistaken impression in some quarters that a 
railroad that is ``revenue inadequate'' under our standards has 
unfettered pricing freedom. To the contrary, a rate may be unreasonable 
even if charged by a carrier that is far short of revenue adequacy. 
Coal Rate Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 5360937. Under the stand-alone cost 
(SAC) test, a railroad's rate is limited to what a hypothetical 
efficient carrier would need to charge to provide the needed service to 
the complaining shipper while fully covering all its costs--without 
regard to the existing carrier's revenue levels. Likewise, under the 
simplified guidelines (available for those cases in which the SAC test 
is impracticable), even though we take into account a carrier's revenue 
need, there is no requirement that a carrier be ``revenue adequate'' 
before its rates can be found unreasonable. Rate Guidelines--Non-Coal 
Proceedings, Ex Parte No. 347 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Dec. 31, 1996), 
slip op. at 11, 13.
    Once a carrier has become revenue adequate, however, shippers may 
prefer to apply the revenue adequacy constraint. Under this test, 
``captive shippers should not be required to continue to pay 
differentially higher rates than other shippers when some or all of 
that differential is no longer necessary to ensure a financially sound 
carrier.'' Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide, 1 I.C.C.2d at 5350936. 
Thus, when carriers are considered ``revenue adequate,'' or when it can 
be demonstrated that inefficient operations are preventing the carrier 
from being considered ``revenue adequate,'' an alternative to the SAC 
test may be available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notwithstanding the administrative proceedings that have already 
been held, the years of continuing debate, and the litigation that has 
already addressed this issue, we agree that a fresh examination would 
be useful. Accordingly, we request representatives of the shipping 
community and rail industry to meet, under the supervision of an 
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and select a mutually acceptable panel 
of three such disinterested experts to examine the current and 
alternative measures of a railroad's financial health, and to make 
recommendations to us as to the appropriate standard to apply.\7\ We 
would then review the panel's recommendations and, if a new or revised 
standard is recommended, seek public comment on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ While we will provide the ALJ, we expect the parties to incur 
the costs for the panel of experts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We request the parties to organize, meet, and select a three-person 
panel by May 15, 1998. The panel, under the ALJ's supervision, may 
determine its own procedures, and should submit its report to the Board 
by July 15, 1998.
Competitive Access
    Under the current statute, three kinds of competitive access 
remedies are available to complaining shippers or carriers. The first, 
and least physically intrusive form of access, is an alternative 
through route under 49 U.S.C. 10705(a), whereby an incumbent railroad 
can be required to interline traffic with another railroad and provide 
a through route and through rate for that traffic. The second form of 
access is reciprocal switching under 49 U.S.C. 11102(c), whereby the 
incumbent railroad, for a fee, must transport the cars of a competing 
carrier, enabling the latter carrier, even though it cannot physically 
serve the shipper's facility, to offer a single-line rate to compete 
with the incumbent's single-line service. The third, most intrusive 
form of access is terminal trackage rights under 49 U.S.C. 11102(a), 
whereby the incumbent railroad, for a fee, must permit physical access 
over its lines to the trains and crews of a competing carrier.
    Although access to more routing options could provide additional 
competition in some circumstances, the statute does not provide these 
access remedies on demand; a showing of need is required. In 
implementing the directives of the Railroad Revitalization and 
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act) and the Staggers Act, which 
ended the former shipper-directed ``open routing'' system under which 
railroads had been required to establish extensive and not always 
efficient interchanges and through routes, the current regulations 
require a demonstration that the incumbent rail carrier has engaged in 
anticompetitive conduct. 49 CFR 1144.5(a). More specifically, they 
require a showing that the carrier has either (1) used its market power 
to extract unreasonable terms or (2) because of its monopoly position 
shown a disregard for the shipper's needs by rendering inadequate 
service.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Midtec Paper Corp. v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 3 I.C.C.2d 
171 (1986), aff'd sub nom. Midtec Paper Corp. v. United States, 857 
F.2d 1487 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the hearings, as in the past, some shippers complained that the 
``anticompetitive conduct'' standard of the competitive access 
regulations is too onerous, effectively precluding use of the 
competitive access remedy in an increasingly consolidated rail industry 
in which shippers are facing service failures such as those now being 
experienced in the West. The railroads concur that the competitive 
access rules should be revisited as they pertain to service failures. 
To ensure that our procedures are effective in addressing needed 
service improvements, we will expeditiously begin a rulemaking 
proceeding to consider revisions to the competitive access regulations 
to address quality of service issues.
    Given the changes that have taken place in the rail industry since 
1980, we will also consider whether to revise the competitive access 
rules with respect to competitive issues that are not related to 
quality of service. First, however, we direct the railroads to arrange 
meetings with a broad range of shipper interests, again under the 
supervision of an ALJ that we will appoint, to explore the issue and 
see if the parties can mutually identify appropriate modifications to 
the non-service-related component of our standards that would 
facilitate greater access where needed.\9\ We request the parties to 
report back to us on this issue by August 3, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ We suggest that the parties explore, for example, the proposal 
made by Illinois Central Railroad that each railroad designate certain 
``open'' gateways on their systems that would be available for use by 
all shippers to create alternative through routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Dominance--Product and Geographic Competition
    Another area of continuing concern for rail-dependent shippers 
involves the difficulties associated with seeking rate relief from the 
Board, especially those difficulties posed by the components of our 
market dominance standards relating to product and geographic 
competition. Under the statute, the Board has jurisdiction to consider 
a rate challenge only if the carrier has market dominance over the 
traffic involved, that is, if there is no effective competition for the 
traffic at issue. 49 U.S.C. 10707. In evaluating whether a railroad can 
exercise market dominance, the Board considers whether the shipper 
could obtain the transportation service that it needs from other 
railroads (intramodal competition) or other modes of transportation 
(intermodal competition). In addition to these direct competitive 
alternatives, the Board considers, when raised by a railroad, whether 
there is product or geographic competition that would effectively 
constrain a carrier's pricing. Product competition results from the 
availability of suitable substitute products that can be acquired 
without relying on the services of the same carrier. Geographic 
competition exists where the shipper can conduct its business by 
obtaining the product it needs from a different source and/or by 
shipping its goods to a different destination using another carrier. 
Shippers complain that the examination of possible product and 
geographic competition unduly complicates the market dominance 
determination and places an enormous litigation obstacle to a shipper's 
ability to pursue a rate complaint.
    Plainly, the zealous use of the discovery process may be partly to 
blame for the heavy burdens associated with the inquiry into product 
and geographic competition in individual rate cases. We have, in a 
decision issued today, taken appropriate action to ensure that 
carriers--which have the burden both of identifying the existence of 
and proving the effectiveness of any product and geographic 
competition--not shift those burdens onto the shipper through 
unsupported and/or overreaching discovery demands. FMC Wyoming Corp. 
and FMC Corp. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., STB Docket No. 42022 (STB 
served Apr. 17, 1998).
    While our action to curb discovery abuses may alleviate some of the 
shippers' concerns, we believe that it is also time to consider 
removing product and geographic competition altogether from the market 
dominance analysis. Initially, the ICC concluded that these issues 
complicate rate proceedings unduly. See Special Procedures for Making 
Findings of Market Dominance as Required by the Railroad Revitalization 
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 353 I.C.C. 875, 9050906, modified, 
355 I.C.C. 12 (1976), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Atchison, T. & 
S.F. Ry. v. ICC, 580 F.2d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1978). The ICC subsequently 
reversed course in Market Dominance Determinations, 365 I.C.C. 118 
(1981), aff'd sub nom. Western Coal Traffic League v. United States, 
719 F.2d 772 (5th Cir. 1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 953 
(1984), concluding that consideration of these issues would be 
manageable.\10\ Based on more than a decade of experience, we should 
now reconsider whether the ICC's initial conclusion was the better one. 
Accordingly, we will institute a rulemaking proceeding expeditiously to 
consider eliminating product and geographic competition from our market 
dominance analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See also Product and Geographic Competition, 2 I.C.C.2d 1 
(1985) (burden of proving product and geographic competition in market 
dominance cases shifted to railroads).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller Railroads
    An area of great concern for short-line railroads (and for the 
shippers that they serve) are obstacles--including ``paper barriers'' 
(contractual obligations incurred when short-line carriers acquired 
lines from larger, connecting carriers); inadequate car supply; and the 
lack of alternative routings--that prevent them from obtaining or fully 
using connections with competing carriers. At the hearings, shippers 
suggested that, in a more competitive rail environment, there should be 
a greater role for short-line railroads and other smaller carriers, 
particularly in rural areas. We agree that smaller railroads represent 
a potentially significant resource in addressing the issues that 
concern the shippers, and that to date their potential remains largely 
untapped.
    At the hearing, we were advised that the smaller railroads and the 
large railroads have initiated discussions to address these concerns. 
Because we believe that private-sector solutions are generally 
preferable, we urge the parties to address and resolve these issues 
themselves, and to do so expeditiously. We direct the parties to report 
back to us on their progress in this regard by May 11, 1998. The Board 
is prepared to take administrative action as necessary and appropriate 
in this area to address the concerns that have been raised.
Formalized Dialogue
    Another issue on which all sides agreed at the hearing was the need 
for greater communications, including more formalized discussions, 
between railroads and their customers. In addition to the forums that 
already exist to address issues of ongoing concern, such as the 
National Grain Car Council and the RSTAC, the railroads proposed to 
establish a regular, formalized process for discussions about service 
planning and needs, with the Board as an overseer of the process.\11\ 
In this regard, we remind railroads that their customers include both 
large and small shippers, and that they need to find a more systematic 
way of addressing customer concerns--related to rate and service issues 
and to means for obtaining relief--of small shippers as well as large 
ones. Additionally, we again remind the railroads that all of these 
initiatives will have effects on their employees, and we urge them to 
include rail labor in their discussions. We direct the railroads to 
report back to us on their progress in establishing formalized dialogue 
with shippers and with their employees, by May 11, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Other matters that might be addressed at such discussion 
sessions include service performance standards and remedies or 
penalties that should apply when such standards are not met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board/Shipper Discussions
    At the hearings, Board members expressed their willingness to meet 
with shippers to address general issues concerning railroad service. 
One shipper representative expressed concern about potential 
improprieties in the event that shippers were to meet informally with 
Board members. So long as shippers limit their discussions at such 
meetings to general service and other issues of broad concern, rather 
than specific pending cases, we welcome the opportunity to engage in 
dialogue with them.
    This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of 
the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
    1. The parties to this proceeding will take the actions described 
in this decision by the dates indicated above.
    2. This decision is effective upon its service.
    By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Owen.

                                        Vernon A. Williams,
                                                         Secretary.
                       service date--may 4, 1998
                 surface transportation board decision
                          stb ex parte no. 575
              review of rail access and competition issues
                          decided: may 4, 1998
BY THE BOARD:
    This proceeding was initiated to examine issues of rail access and 
competition in today's railroad industry. During two days of 
informational hearings, and in numerous written statements, we heard 
the complaints of shippers dependent on rail service that, as a result 
of consolidation in the industry, their competitive options have been 
limited, and that available remedies are burdensome, costly, and 
unresponsive.
    On April 17, 1998, we issued a decision addressing the concerns 
that had been raised. We found that, through administrative action, we 
could examine making it less costly and burdensome for aggrieved 
parties to obtain access to the regulatory system, and providing the 
opportunity for shippers with concerns about poor service to obtain 
service from an alternate carrier. Thus, we began one rulemaking 
proceeding, and intend to begin another shortly.\1\ We decided that the 
most appropriate way to achieve more effective utilization of smaller 
railroads in addressing the concerns raised by the shippers would be 
through discussions within the railroad industry. Thus, we directed 
railroads to meet and discuss this issue among themselves, and to 
report back to the Board by May 11, 1998. Finally, we concluded that 
certain issues--in particular, issues relating to railroad ``revenue 
adequacy,'' the competitive access rules in general, and formalized 
railroad/shipper dialogue designed to help carriers find a more 
systematic way of addressing customer concerns--would be better 
addressed at this time in a private-sector rather than governmental 
forum. Thus, as to revenue adequacy, we directed railroads to meet with 
shippers with a view toward selecting a panel of three disinterested 
experts to make recommendations as to an appropriate revenue adequacy 
standard, and to report back to the Board by May 15, 1998. As to 
competitive access, because we were convinced that railroads and 
shippers could, if they tried, find some common ground, we directed 
them to meet, negotiate, and report back to the Board by August 3, 
1998. Finally, we directed railroads to report back to the Board by May 
11, 1998, on their progress in establishing formalized dialogue with 
their shippers and their employees. We designated Administrative Law 
Judge Jacob Leventhal to supervise meetings as appropriate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Our notice proposing removal of product and geographic 
competition as factors in market dominance proceedings was issued in 
Market Dominance Determinations--Product and Geographic Competition, 
STB Ex Parte No. 627 (STB served Apr. 29, 1998). We will soon issue a 
decision addressing service issues.
    \2\ Judge Leventhal held a preliminary conference on April 28, 
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 27, 1998, we received a letter from several shippers and 
shipper groups asking us to modify our April 17 order in two respects. 
Rather than seeking to characterize the letter, we quote its operative 
portions directly:

          First, the Board should reverse the priorities of the revenue 
        adequacy and competitive access issues. Competitive access is, 
        by far, the most urgent matter to shippers. We also believe it 
        will be difficult to reach agreement with the railroads on this 
        issue, and therefore we first request that the order be 
        modified to require the parties to report by May 29, rather 
        than August 3, on whether significant progress is possible.
          Second, revenue adequacy, while important, is less urgent. 
        Moreover, we question the need for the elaborate and expensive 
        processes set forth in the Board's order. However, we are 
        certainly willing to discuss revenue adequacy issues with the 
        railroads. Indeed, recent pronouncements by railroad executives 
        suggest that progress on the subject may be possible. 
        Accordingly, we also request that the procedures on revenue 
        adequacy ordered by the Board be suspended until shippers and 
        the railroads enter discussions on this issue, and report back 
        to the Board on the progress of these discussions. The deadline 
        for this report should be May 29, 1998.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ In a letter dated April 29, 1998, the National Industrial 
Transportation League supported the April 27 letter insofar as it 
sought a change in the procedures for addressing revenue adequacy.

    On April 30, 1998, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) 
responded to the shippers' letter. Noting that the only conference 
scheduled before Judge Leventhal between now and May 29 will be held on 
May 21, AAR points out that the schedule proposed by the shippers will 
allow little time for meaningful dialogue and consultation as to the 
competitive access issue. Although it says that it will participate in 
further negotiations on revenue adequacy, AAR also expresses its dismay 
that the shippers have apparently rejected the panel approach, which, 
as AAR describes it, ``would replace advocacy and contentiousness with 
objective economic analysis.''
                       discussion and conclusions
    1. Prioritization of Issues. At the outset, we will respond to the 
request that we ``reverse the priorities'' of the initiatives we set in 
motion. Our April 17 order raised several issues, but it did not intend 
to, and indeed did not, prioritize among them. The fact that the date 
for the revenue adequacy report was set earlier than the date for the 
competitive access report did not reflect a higher priority for the 
revenue adequacy exercise, any more than the still earlier reporting 
date for the smaller railroad discussions could be said to reflect an 
even higher priority. The due date for the report on revenue adequacy 
exercise was set earlier than the due date for the competitive access 
report merely because it was, and still is, our view that it would be 
simpler for interested parties to meet and select three unbiased 
experts than it would be to address and seek to resolve issues such as 
competitive access. Although the shippers in their letter indicate that 
competitive access relief is more urgent than amendments to revenue 
adequacy, we did not establish a hierarchy of objectives, and we urge 
all parties to take all of the initiatives in our April 17 order 
seriously.
    2. Revenue Adequacy. We also do not believe that our order set 
forth ``elaborate and expensive processes'' regarding revenue adequacy. 
At the hearings, shippers raised substantial concerns about the current 
revenue adequacy standards, while the railroads defended the need for a 
revenue adequacy standard that permits them to earn enough money to 
attract capital and to invest in needed facilities. Railroad and 
shipper representatives recommended referring the revenue adequacy 
question to one or more disinterested expert economists with no 
preconceived position on the issue,\4\ and so we directed railroads to 
meet with shippers with a view toward selecting a panel of three such 
experts to make recommendations as to an appropriate standard. 
Selection of a panel, as we envision it, should be a relatively 
straightforward exercise. The process from then on would not be an 
elaborate one, and it would not be particularly expensive overall if 
all of the parties agreed in advance to support the recommendations of 
the expert panel rather than to continue to pursue the revenue adequacy 
issue before the Board, the courts, and whatever other forums the 
railroad and shipping communities typically address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Dr. Alfred E. Kahn, for example, testifying on behalf of the 
Alliance for Rail Competition (ARC), one of the signatories to the 
April 27 letter, urged the Board to consult with disinterested 
financial analysts that are not paid by either the railroads or the 
shippers as to an appropriate revenue adequacy standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nevertheless, as both the shippers and AAR indicate that progress 
through means other than the 3-expert panel is possible in addressing 
the revenue adequacy issue, we will give the shippers more time so that 
they can pursue the issue directly with the railroads. If they cannot 
reach agreement, however, we urge the parties not to reject, as the 
shippers apparently have done, the notion that the issue be resolved by 
a neutral expert or panel of experts. Moreover, given that the next 
conference is not scheduled until May 21, 1998, we do not believe that 
a reporting date of May 29, 1998 will provide an adequate opportunity 
for meaningful progress. Therefore, although we certainly will not 
preclude any party that wishes to do so from filing an interim report 
on May 29, 1998, or on any other date it deems appropriate, we request 
a report on the revenue adequacy issue by August 3, 1998.
    3. Competitive Access. The shippers ask to shorten the reporting 
time for the competitive access issue, apparently because of their 
concern that it will be difficult to reach agreement with the railroads 
on this issue. We do not understand the shippers' logic.
    At the hearings, shippers raised substantial concerns about the 
impediments that the existing regulations imposed on their ability to 
make a competitive access case, while the railroads expressed concern 
that opening up the competitive access rules could place them on a 
slippery slope toward total open access, which, in their view, would 
adversely affect them and the public. Because we were convinced that 
railroads and shippers could, if they tried, find some common ground on 
the issue of competitive access, in our May 17 order we directed them 
to meet, negotiate, and report back to the Board. We recognized that 
negotiations concerning competitive access might require substantial 
work, and that is why we did not request a report until August 3, 1998.
    Shortening the reporting time to, in effect, permit one session 
before Judge Leventhal with a report due a week later would send a 
message that we see little prospect for accommodation on any aspect of 
the competitive access issue. If that were our view, however, we would 
not have directed the railroads to negotiate with the shippers in the 
first place. Notwithstanding the tenor of the shippers' letter, we 
continue to believe that some common ground can be reached if all 
parties can put aside their preconceived notions and enter negotiations 
with an open mind, committed to seeking some common ground rather than 
immediately assuming that governmental fiat is the only answer or that 
more litigious avenues must be pursued. Therefore, we continue to urge 
the parties to negotiate seriously to reach agreement on as many issues 
related to competitive access as possible. We request a report on 
August 3, 1998, although, again, we will not preclude any party that 
wishes to do so from filing an interim report on May 29, 1998, or on 
any other date it deems appropriate.
It is ordered:
    1. The shippers' requests are governed by this decision.
    2. The report on revenue adequacy is due on August 3, 1998, 
although any party that wishes to do so may file an interim report on 
May 29, 1998.
    3. The report on competitive access is due on August 3, 1998, 
although any party that wishes to do so may file an interim report on 
May 29, 1998.
    4. This decision is effective upon its service.
    By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Owen.

                                        Vernon A. Williams,
                                                         Secretary.

    Question. Please set out a schedule for the Board's announced 
rulemaking proceeding to consider revisions to the competitive access 
regulations.
    Answer. In its April 17th decision in Ex Parte No. 575, the Board 
stated that it would begin a proceeding to consider revisions to its 
competitive access regulations, 49 CFR Part 1144, to provide expedited 
access relief where a shipper's incumbent rail carrier cannot or does 
not provide adequate service. The Board anticipates that it will issue 
a notice of proposed rulemaking on or about May 12, 1998, with comments 
due in mid-June 1998, and replies in mid-July 1998.
    The Board also announced that it would consider whether to revise 
the regulations with respect to competitive issues that are not related 
to quality of service. The Board directed, however, that these matters 
first be explored at shipper-carrier meetings to see if the parties 
could find at least some common ground on appropriate modifications to 
the competitive access standards that would facilitate greater access 
when needed. The Board asked the parties to report back to the Board by 
August 3, 1998, and then the Board will take further steps as 
appropriate in this area.
                              open access
    Question. Does the Board's current authority to approve trackage 
rights arrangements extend to approving an open access arrangement, or 
would additional authority be necessary to establish and regulate an 
open access system?
    Answer. The Board does not have general authority under all 
circumstances to compel an unwilling railroad to grant trackage rights 
to another railroad. The Board may only approve consensual trackage 
rights arrangements under 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(6). The Board may force a 
railroad to grant trackage rights over its lines in three limited 
situations: (1) under 49 U.S.C. 11324(c) only as a condition to its 
approval of the carrier's merger with another railroad; (2) under 49 
U.S.C. 11102(a) only with respect to terminal facilities; and (3) under 
49 U.S.C. 11123(a) only for a limited (maximum 9-month) time period and 
only in response to a carrier's failure to provide adequate service. 
Thus, under the current statute, the Board cannot establish and 
regulate a nationwide rail system of physical ``open access;'' 
additional statutory authority would be required if such a system were 
desired.
    Questions. Would the current staffing levels at the Board be 
adequate to establish and regulate an open access system? If not, what 
additional resources do you estimate would be required.
    Answer. ``Open access'' means different things to different people. 
For purposes of this answer, we assume that open access refers to a 
regulatory process in which each railroad's system is opened up to the 
equipment of its competitors, or in which the ownership of all railroad 
track is lodged in a single entity, and service over that track is 
provided by rail operators that would pay compensation for the use of 
the track. That sort of a process could require substantial regulatory 
oversight, because unless a fixed fee and a uniform set of operating 
conditions were established--which might be inappropriate for many 
circumstances--the terms and conditions of the access would need to be 
supervised. We have no basis on which to predict at this point how much 
our staffing needs would increase under an open access scenario.
                            revenue adequacy
    Question. What are the potential applications of a Board 
determination of a railroad's ``revenue adequacy?''
    Answer. Revenue adequacy, although not an insignificant concept, 
generally is not, by itself, determinative of the actual rates that 
railroads can charge their shippers. Thus, a railroad, whether or not 
it is revenue adequate, does not have unfettered pricing flexibility. 
To the contrary, a rate may be unreasonable even if charged by a 
carrier that is far short of revenue adequacy.
    Currently, large rail rate cases are processed under the CMP 
guidelines discussed in an earlier question. To date, complainant 
shippers have used the stand-alone cost constraint of CMP. Under this 
approach, the rate analysis is not based on the revenue needs of the 
existing carrier, but instead is based on what a hypothetical new 
carrier would need to charge to provide service to a select traffic 
group identified by the complainant. Thus, whether or not a defendant 
carrier is considered to be revenue adequate is irrelevant under the 
stand-alone cost test.
    This is not to say that revenue adequacy has no effect on rates and 
rate regulation. Under the CMP guidelines, there is another approach, 
which heretofore has not been used. Specifically, under this approach, 
the revenue adequacy constraint precludes a carrier from charging its 
captive shippers more than is needed for that carrier to achieve 
revenue adequacy. The managerial efficiency constraint further limits 
the carrier's pricing; it reduces the revenue need of the carrier by 
the cost of any inefficiencies identified by a complaining shipper. 
Thus, once a carrier is earning adequate revenues, or if inefficiencies 
are the only reason a carrier is not meeting the revenue adequacy 
standard, captive shippers may obtain appropriate rate relief using 
this analysis of the defendant carrier's existing (entire) route 
structure, operational practices, and rate structure.
    Finally, under the simplified guidelines for handling smaller rail 
rate cases, also discussed in an earlier question, revenue adequacy is 
one of several factors used on a case-by-case basis in determining 
whether a rate is unreasonable. It is, however, not the determinative 
factor.


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1999

                              ----------                              

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

    [Clerk's note.--The following testimonies were received by 
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies for 
inclusion in the record. The submitted materials relate to the 
fiscal year 1999 budget request.
    The subcommittee requested that public witnesses provide 
written testimony because, given the Senate schedule and the 
number of subcommittee hearings with Department witnesses, 
there was not enough time to schedule hearings for 
nondepartmental witnesses.
                       Aviation-related Testimony
    Prepared Statement of the Air Traffic Control Association, Inc.
                              introduction
    The Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. (``ATCA'') is a 
professional association of forty-two years standing dedicated to 
advancement of the science and profession of air traffic control and 
aviation safety. Its membership is worldwide in scope and represents 
all aspects of the air traffic control discipline, from air traffic 
control specialists and airway facilities technicians operating and 
maintaining the air traffic control system, to individuals and 
companies developing and providing the technology, equipment, and 
services supporting the system, to the citizens, government agencies, 
and airlines using the system.
    Today's economic, social, and political environment is increasingly 
global. Instantaneous worldwide telecommunications allow businesses 
around the world to function seamlessly, and encourage people to 
experience distant and various cultures; national economies are more 
and more specialized in production, intensifying global 
interdependencies and increasing the importance of international trade; 
and international tourism is increasingly accessible and attractive to 
all segments of societies. These trends prevail within the U.S. as 
well: Businesses have offices, plants and facilities in various 
locations; citizens travel frequently and conveniently for business and 
recreation; local economies are more and more specialized in the 
products and services they produce, with efficient, reasonably priced 
transportation of commodities being essential to virtually every aspect 
of daily life.
    Safe and efficient air transportation is central to every aspect of 
today's fast-paced, global environment. Not only must goods and people 
move freely and efficiently for human needs to be satisfied, but 
reliable and economic air transportation drives economic prosperity by 
supporting the needs of business and manufacturing, and by encouraging 
trade and tourism. Conversely, an inefficient, expensive air 
transportation system can limit, and even dampen economic activity.
    Modern air traffic control and aviation safety regulation are 
pivotal to the health and capability of the air transportation system. 
In its role as provider of air traffic control and aviation safety 
services, a robust and effective Federal Aviation Administration is 
vital to the Nation's prosperity, security, and technological 
preeminence. In order to maintain excellence in aviation, however, FAA 
must be equipped for challenges of the new millennium. The Air Traffic 
Control Association therefore urges Congress to make significantly 
increased funding for activities and projects of the FAA a priority in 
fiscal year 1999.
                       fueling atc modernization
    Like every other sector of the U.S. economy, aviation is 
experiencing growing pains. Worldwide and domestically air traffic is 
increasing at a rapid rate, and this trend is predicted to continue 
into the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, investment in aviation 
infrastructure including ATC systems is not keeping pace. Although FAA 
controllers today provide safe ATC services to the world's largest 
aviation marketplace, they do this using proven but nonetheless aging 
equipment sustained by a patchwork of temporary fixes and upgrades 
designed to enhance system reliability and capacity while modernized 
replacement equipment is being developed and fielded. Although 
dedicated, creative airway facilities personnel keep the system 
operating remarkably well, equipment continues to age and deteriorate.
    The Federal Aviation Administration today is modernizing and 
upgrading the National Airspace System with up-to-date equipment and 
technologies that will meet the safety and capacity needs of the 
Twenty-First Century. The blueprint for modernization is embodied in 
the National Airspace System Architecture, a plan developed by FAA with 
aviation community input. Now in its draft third version, the NAS 
Architecture identifies infrastructure improvements through the year 
2015, specifically aeronautical communications, navigation, 
surveillance, decision support systems for air traffic controllers, and 
information-sharing among aviation system participants. The 
Architecture is designed to be used by aircraft operators as a guide 
for avionics equipage, as well as by FAA and other organizations for 
costing, budgeting, and investment analysis. Among the new technologies 
slated for incorporation in the modernized ATC system are satellite-
based systems for surveillance of aircraft in the air and on the 
surface, air/ground and aircraft/aircraft communications, and aircraft 
navigation; user-friendly tools for controllers such as updated 
computer displays, sophisticated aircraft metering and spacing, and 
conflict prediction and resolution aids; and advanced information 
networks that allow airlines, private aircraft operators, airports and 
FAA air traffic management organizations to share the same flight 
operations data and, ultimately, agree on the best way to manage air 
traffic.
    The draft NAS Architecture Version 3.0 describes an air traffic 
control system users want, and a road map for getting there. The 
Architecture reflects a realistic adaptation of existing and developing 
technologies to the realities of today's air traffic environment; it 
takes into account the needs of aircraft having avionics equipage of 
varying levels of sophistication; and by using an open systems 
approach, it builds-in flexibility to accommodate future traffic growth 
and advancing technology. The Air Traffic Control Association commends 
the FAA on this achievement, and fully supports its implementation. It 
is also submitted that NAS modernization--and the NAS Architecture--
must be viewed as an ongoing process that will continue into the 
future. With increasing traffic, evolving user needs, and technological 
progress there always will be opportunities to bring added safety and 
efficiency to air transportation, and to revise objectives if 
necessary.
    With encouragement of aviation users, FAA also has adopted a 
practice of sifting major ongoing modernization projects for 
technologies, concepts and capabilities that can be extracted, 
prototyped, and implemented immediately to provide early operating 
benefits. These ``fall-out'' systems and capabilities can mean 
significant time and cost savings for airlines and other aircraft 
operators. Among such technologies are controller decision support 
systems such as the Center/TRACON Automation System, traffic management 
advisor, passive final approach spacing tool, and initial conflict 
probe; and promising systems useful to airlines and airport operators 
such as collaborative decision-making, controller/pilot data link 
communications, and the surface movement advisor. Day-by-day other new 
concepts and technologies emerge which will allow greater operating 
efficiency and flexibility, and added safety. Obtaining immediate 
benefits from these innovations through accelerated implementation 
makes sense, and has the support of the entire aviation community. It 
will, however, cost money and resources over and above those already 
programmed for development and implementation of major new systems.
    Adding to these challenges, FAA is encountering increased 
difficulties and expense associated with sustaining, maintaining, and 
in some cases replacing aging equipment which has exceeded its planned 
service life, and is slated for modernization and upgrade. Older 
equipment and wiring is getting more and more brittle; repair or 
replacement parts are becoming increasingly difficult--sometimes 
impossible--to find; repairs take longer, resulting in protracted down-
time. Therefore systems in use also must be sustained and improved to 
perform essential services until long term improvements come on line. A 
shortfall in funding for sustainment is occurring across-the-board in 
connection with ATC computers and displays such as ARTS and EDARC, 
radars (Mode S), navaids (ILS, VOR/DME), radios and other 
communications systems. In addition, FAA faces the critical and costly 
task of evaluating and modifying or replacing computer systems--
including the HOST computer--to be Year 2000 compliant. As with the 
accelerated implementation process, the job of sustaining and 
replenishing older infrastructure represents a significant and 
increasing burden on FAA's facilities and equipment budget, and is 
significantly underfunded.
    This challenge exacerbated by delay in fielding modernized ATC 
equipment, some of which is attributable to technological difficulties, 
but much of which results from chronic underfunding. Within the backlog 
of modernization projects which should be accelerated with additional 
resources are items such as airport surface radars, ATC recorders, 
aeronautical weather systems, various communications equipment and 
equipment upgrades, ATC computers, and navaids. Of particular concern 
is the need to accelerate work on technology--specifically the Next 
Generation Communication System (NEXCOM)--which addresses the 
increasingly troublesome problem of aeronautical frequency congestion 
and shortage of available spectrum. And to the extent that underfunding 
causes modernization project schedules to extend farther into the 
future, the overall expense increases because longer transition periods 
will be necessary during which aging equipment must be sustained and 
upgraded while overlapping newer equipment is only partially fielded.
    Nonetheless, the Administration is requesting only $2.130 billion 
for FAA Facilities and Equipment expenditures in fiscal year 1999. This 
is far below the amount necessary to sustain the existing ATC 
infrastructure, address the backlog of underfunded modernization 
projects, and simultaneously upgrade the system in keeping with 
increasing air traffic, and users' needs for greater efficiency and 
operating flexibility. In draft Version 3.0 of its National Airspace 
System Architecture, FAA estimates the cost of Architecture activities 
in fiscal year 1999 to be $2.67 billion. The Architecture projects this 
annual cost to rise gradually to $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2002, 
leveling out at approximately $3.0 billion per year thereafter. Add to 
this the price of accelerating implementation of ``fall-out'' 
technologies, the cost of catching up on the backlog of previously 
underfunded modernization projects, and the expense of refurbishing and 
replenishing aging equipment pending replacement, and it is evident 
that the true necessary level of funding for FAA Facilities and 
Equipment in fiscal year 1999--and beyond for the foreseeable future--
is more in the order of $4.0 billion.
    FAA Administrator Garvey has initiated a systematic review of the 
current ATC modernization plans in the context of user needs, 
technological options, and federal budget concerns. Periodic, 
constructive re-assessment can be a healthy and useful enterprise, 
allowing the agency to confirm that its activities are consistent with 
its mission, user needs, and financial and technical reality. To this 
end, the Air Traffic Control Association commends Administrator Garvey 
on her efforts. The Association is disappointed however to learn that 
the Administration's funding projections for future years (``OMB 
passbacks'') threaten to prevent FAA from achieving NAS modernization 
objectives within the schedule envisioned in draft NAS Architecture 
Version 3.0. Although Administrator Garvey commends the NAS 
Architecture as the ``what'' that the ATC needs, she has accepted the 
OMB limitations in funding which in large measure dictate the ``when'' 
if not the ``how.'' Consequently, FAA is now engaged in the unhappy 
task of revising the Architecture to conform with projected future 
budgets. The aviation community is being assured that this revision 
will be confined to stating a less aggressive schedule for 
modernization, but will not negatively affect the substance, scope or 
quality of improvements. For the following reasons however, the 
Association believes the ``when'' conclusion dictated by OMB guidelines 
is unacceptable, and moreover as a matter of policy ATCA disagrees with 
the practice of conforming the NAS modernization plans to artificial 
parameters contained in Federal budget guidelines.
    First, the Administration's budget request does not reflect the 
actual funding needs of the NAS. It is a fact of life that the 
Administration's annual budget is an attempt to reconcile the various 
needs of the American public for federal government services, when 
those needs exceed available revenues. The Administration's budget 
request for FAA is--as are budgets for other Federal agencies--an 
attempt to allocate to aviation a reasoned share of scarce federal 
resources. The Nation today, however, is experiencing unprecedented 
prosperity; robust air transportation is a powerful engine driving the 
booming economy. Now is the time to make the investments in air traffic 
control infrastructure that will assure continued success into the next 
millennium. Indeed, this is a continuing need if the economic engine of 
air transportation and commerce is to continue to propel the U.S. 
forward.
    Second, a vigorous, well-funded ATC modernization effort is 
essential not only to accommodating growth, but also to maintaining the 
position of the United States as world leader in aviation technology. 
In recent years the United States has been in the forefront of a global 
endeavor to apply satellite technology to air traffic control. The use 
of satellites in ATC bears dramatic promise for enhancing safety and 
efficiency of flight, for example to enhance communications and provide 
advanced ATC capabilities over oceans and large continental land 
expanses where radar surveillance is impracticable or impossible. 
Satellite technology also can bring a basic, cost-effective ATC 
capability to nations and areas that do not need, or cannot afford 
sophisticated ground-based systems. With U.S. leadership, international 
consensus has developed in support of a global air traffic management 
(ATM) system based on the application of satellite technology for 
communications, navigation, and surveillance (CNS/ATM). If, as some 
have suggested, the FAA redirects its modernization efforts primarily 
toward delivering ``core'' Free Flight capabilities at the expense of 
more advanced CNS/ATM systems, the risk arises that other nations will 
bypass the United States in air traffic control technology. Aside from 
the blow U.S. prestige internationally, continual changes in ATC 
modernization plans and schedules foster global disharmony of ATC 
systems, creating difficulties for aircraft operators who must fly 
internationally with one set of avionics.
    In conclusion, ATCA urges the Congress to reach beyond the 
Administration's overly-conservative budget estimate, and enact the 
level of funding for fiscal year 1999 which in fact is in keeping with 
the Nation's need for aviation infrastructure maintenance and 
modernization, and its position as world leader in aviation 
technology--that is, $4.0 billion.
    The Association moreover submits that, although Administrator 
Garvey has made a noteworthy start, community consensus on NAS 
infrastructure maintenance and improvement still is not mature. To date 
the Administrator's review activities, however well motivated, have 
tapped only a narrow cross section of aviation community viewpoints. 
Consulting blue ribbon commissions, or polling user representatives on 
the ``what'' of NAS infrastructure, will not assure timely execution of 
ATC modernization. Rather, what is needed is an aviation community 
``compact,'' by virtue of which all elements of air transportation--
airlines, general aviation, the military, controllers, maintainers, 
FAA, and the Congress--not only agree on ``what'' the ideal NAS 
infrastructure should be, but also they commit in a binding way to the 
``when'' and ``how'' of modernization and sustainment. Not only must 
all participants--including government elements--approve the NAS 
architecture, but equally important all participants must confirm and 
adhere to a solid and achievable schedule for fielding ATC systems, 
equipping aircraft with new avionics, and decommissioning unneeded ATC 
facilities. For their part of the compact, government elements--both 
the Administration and Congress--must live up to the responsibility of 
assuring a predictable, reliable and sufficient stream of funding for 
NAS infrastructure activities. Consistency in planning, adherence to 
schedule, and predictability in funding are absolutely essential 
because NAS users--airlines, military, general aviation--will not equip 
their aircraft with expensive new avionics unless they have confidence 
that the modernized ATC infrastructure will in fact be in place 
allowing them to derive reasonable operating and economic benefits from 
their investment. In NAS modernization, keeping the faith is of the 
essence.
                 research, engineering and development
    The Administration has proposed funding of $290 million for FAA 
Research, Engineering, and Development in fiscal year 1999. Although 
this amount is a significant increase (46 percent) over the fiscal year 
1998 enacted level, it would merely restore FAA RE&D to slightly more 
than the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. (FAA RE&D funding suffered a 
precipitous drop during fiscal year 1996-98 for Federal deficit 
reduction reasons.) The funding the Administration proposes for fiscal 
year 1999 simply is not enough.
    Despite huge demands for research and development generated by the 
ATC modernization effort, by law only 34 percent (less that $100 
million in fiscal year 1999) of FAA RE&D funding can be applied to air 
traffic services programs. Within this category all nature of ATC 
research competes for RE&D resources, from Free Flight procedures and 
technologies, to data link and other communications, capacity 
enhancement initiatives, aviation weather, operations research and air 
traffic management. Sixty-six percent (66 percent) of FAA RE&D funding 
goes to other important areas of aviation research such as aircraft 
safety, aviation security, human factors and medicine, airport 
technology, environment and energy, and research partnerships. Within 
each of these categories, FAA prioritizes, economizes, and in many 
cases simply--and stoically--does without. These are not conditions 
which should be visited upon the lead aviation research organization of 
the United States, especially at a time when the FAA is called upon to 
invent ways of meeting burgeoning air traffic demand and at the same 
time maintain--in fact, enhance--public safety.
    The Administration's fiscal year 1999 request of $290 million does 
not cover the cost of RE&D associated implementation of the NAS 
Architecture, estimated by FAA in draft Version 3.0 to be $348 million 
in fiscal year 1999, increasing to $560 million in fiscal year 2000. 
Even these figures significantly understate cost of aviation RE&D which 
should be occurring because FAA activities traditionally have been 
limited to applied research. As with all organizations having a highly 
technical mission, additional funding should be appropriated for basic 
research--the type of inquiry that can yield break-through concepts and 
technologies that will produce really significant long-term benefits. 
Without support for this type of activity, scientific advancement of 
the scope and quality achieved by the Nation in aviation in this 
century truly will become a thing of the past.
    The Air Traffic Control Association therefore urges Congress to 
appropriate $500 million for FAA Research, Engineering and Development 
in fiscal year 1999--an amount sufficient to support NAS Architecture 
activities, and to invigorate basic research activities in support of 
the Twenty-First Century aviation system.
                       funding for faa operations
    The Administration requests $5.631 billion for FAA Operations in 
fiscal year 1999, a 5.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 1998 
enacted level. This amount would fund an additional 185 air traffic 
controllers, 58 flight standards inspectors, and 150 field maintenance 
technicians. The Administration request also includes $61.7 million to 
make operational new equipment being delivered.
    It is not enough. The lion's share--over 70 percent--of the $315 
million increase is earmarked for non-discretionary increases 
associated with mandatory pay adjustments and inflationary growth, and 
not available for programs directed toward devising and implementing 
new concepts and capabilities, or enhancing capacity. Among critical 
activities related to air traffic control specifically that need an 
infusion of resources are backlogs of deferred maintenance, training in 
all areas of activity, accelerated development of innovative operating 
procedures, international standards setting and harmonization efforts, 
and accelerated certification procedures. With air traffic rapidly 
increasing and technology proceeding at a breathtaking pace, FAA cannot 
be expected to continue improving and expanding its level of services 
on what amounts to a current services budget.
    FAA Operations must be funded significantly--10 percent to 20 
percent--above the amount the Administration requests for fiscal year 
1999 if the Agency is to meet aviation challenges of the Twenty-First 
Century.
                    funding for airport improvements
    The Administration proposes $1.7 billion for Airport Improvement 
Grants in fiscal year 1999, the same amount enacted in fiscal year 
1998. ATCA recommends that the amount appropriated for Airport Grants 
in fiscal year 1999 and future years increase to $2 billion per year.
    The Administration's fiscal year 1999 AIP funding proposal simply 
is not enough. The complexity and volume of traffic traveling through 
the Nation's airports increases daily. Regardless of how safe and 
efficient the air portion of the journey is, congestion and delay 
before take-off or after touch-down can make the difference between a 
pleasant, timely trip and a harried, unsatisfactory ordeal. Localities, 
especially small communities are hard pressed to pay for airport 
improvements that keep pace with the expanding aviation marketplace, 
and inadequacies in airport infrastructure no less than failings in 
other elements of the air transport system can be a limiting factor on 
trade, tourism, and economic activity. Systematic and healthy Federal 
investment in airport development is an essential component of a 
balanced plan to meet aviation needs of the Twenty-First Century.
             reliable funding stream for aviation is needed
    Aviation policy makers are attempting to devise a mechanism, 
supported by the entire aviation community, that will assure adequate 
and reliable funding for aviation safety and air traffic control 
activities of the Federal Government. ATCA supports this activity. 
Regardless of the outcome however, the ultimate reality is that greater 
levels of resources--both dollars and people--must be applied to the 
air traffic control system now, today, if FAA is going to be able to 
meet the demands of increasing air traffic while continuing to provide 
the same safe and reliable ATC and aviation safety services the 
traveling and shipping public enjoys, and has come to expect, and which 
fuels today's robust economy.
                               conclusion
    The potential for rapid advance of ATC-related technology and the 
emergence of new concepts for air traffic management give cause for 
optimism about the future of air transportation, and provide 
opportunities for the United States to forge ahead in its position as 
world leader in aviation and air traffic control. The Air Traffic 
Control Association urges Congress to join hands with FAA and the 
aviation community in a partnership for progress, enacting funding 
levels for FAA in fiscal year 1999 which foster excellence into the 
Twenty-First Century.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of American Association of Airport Executives and 
             Airports Council International--North America
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The American 
Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and the Airports Council 
International--North America (ACI-NA) are pleased to present our 
testimony regarding fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA).
    ACI-NA's members are the local, state and regional governing bodies 
that own and operate commercial service airports in the United States 
and Canada. ACI-NA member airports serve more than 90 percent of the 
U.S. domestic scheduled air passenger and cargo traffic and virtually 
all U.S. scheduled international travel. AAAE is the professional 
organization representing the men and women who manage primary, 
commercial service, reliever and general aviation airports which 
enplane 99 percent of the passengers in the United States.
    Before focusing on the fiscal year 1999 request for the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP), we must state our strong opposition to the 
actions taken by the House regarding offsets for the fiscal year 1998 
supplemental spending bill now making its way through the Congress. The 
House Appropriations Committee, in seeking offsets for the new 
spending, originally chose to cut $610 million from the Airport 
Improvement Program, including a lowering of the fiscal year 1998 
obligation limitation from $1.7 billion to $1.425 billion. Happily, the 
final version of the House legislation restored $243.6 million of the 
$275 million obligation limitation reduction. Despite the restoration 
of most of the funding, the final House bill proposes to reduce the 
fiscal year 1998 obligation limitation by $31 million. As this 
subcommittee knows, AIP funds vital safety security, capacity and noise 
projects in every state in the nation. AIP has been underfunded in 
recent years as our testimony will demonstrate. A cut to the program 
would negatively impact safety, security, capacity and noise projects 
and would undermine the excellent work of this subcommittee in recent 
years to restore adequate funding for the program. We urge you to 
oppose this proposed reduction in no uncertain terms in your 
deliberations with the House on the supplemental spending bill for 
fiscal year 1998.
    To begin our fiscal year 1999 testimony, we would like to thank you 
Mr. Chairman, and members of this subcommittee, for your significant 
effort on last year's bill. Last year's enacted level for the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP) of $1.7 billion represented a $240 million 
increase over the previous year and a $700 million increase over the 
Administration's request. Rather than a cut of 31.5 percent as the 
Administration proposed, Congress enacted a 16 percent increase, for 
which we are deeply appreciative.
    After a number of years of recommending artificially low AIP 
levels, the Administration has finally proposed a funding level closer 
to that which is necessary. The request of the Administration is still 
significantly below where airports believe the funding level should be, 
namely, the fully authorized amount of $2.347 billion. If that funding 
level is not possible, given the difficult funding choices you face, we 
strongly believe that AIP should be funded at not less than $2 billion, 
which is the level recommended not only by airports, but by the 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC) and the Air Transport 
Association (ATA).
             investment in airport infrastructure is vital
    Airports are ``economic engines'' that generate and support local 
economic development by providing complete transportation services, 
stimulating business activity and investment, and creating jobs. As an 
example, Mr. Chairman, there are 25,000 direct, on-airport jobs at 
Washington National and Washington Dulles. This figure does not include 
the thousands of indirect (induced) jobs that are generated as a result 
of the activity at these airports. This example, of course, is repeated 
throughout the country many times over.
    Today, the air transportation system is the linchpin of our 
national and local economies, essential to the safe transportation of 
people and goods, both domestically and internationally. As we move 
toward global economic competition, airport capacity in the United 
States is increasingly critical to our national economy. Germany and 
Japan may be our largest economic competitors, but in terms of size and 
geography, each can produce goods and services internally with modern 
systems of roads and railroads. The United States, due to its size and 
geography, must have an efficient, high capacity airport system to move 
its people and resources in order to compete. Ironically, we are in 
danger of seriously under-investing at a time when we can least afford 
it. With the expenditure of discretionary funds so constrained by the 
federal budget, we as a nation should maximize those expenditures on 
investments that will help our economy grow and on aviation facilities 
that will be available for use today, tomorrow and for years to come. 
We must build the infrastructure that will allow not only our 
generation, but our children and grandchildren the opportunity to 
compete and prosper in the global economy.
    Since airline deregulation in 1978, the number of passengers using 
the domestic aviation system has grown exponentially. Last year, around 
581 million passengers were enplaned in the United States. The FAA 
projects that by 2002, that number will grow to 740 million and it will 
approach the one billion mark sometime in 2009.
    Already, we have significant capacity and delay problems in our 
system. Currently, there are 22 airports that are seriously congested, 
experiencing more than 20,000 hours of delay or more per year. These 
delays cost the airlines, alone, over half a billion dollars a year and 
impose tremendous costs and disruptions to millions of passengers and 
businesses. FAA forecasts that unless major airport capacity 
investments are made, this number of congested airports will grow to 32 
in less than 10 years.
    This means that over the next several years, we also have to 
somehow make sure that there is sufficient investment in our nation's 
airport infrastructure to handle not only the current passenger traffic 
but an additional 200 million passengers by the year 2002. This will be 
a major challenge. We as a nation cannot afford the billions of dollars 
in annual delay costs and lost productivity to the airlines, air 
travelers and businesses, nor can we afford to weaken our economic 
competitiveness abroad, by settling for an inefficient and inadequate 
air transportation system.
    It generally takes 5-7 years to undertake and complete an airport 
development project. That means that as politically difficult as it may 
be to provide an increase in airport construction funding in today's 
budgetary environment, it is absolutely imperative that Congress do 
just that. Without the increased investment, we cannot realistically 
hope to close the existing investment gap and will have no chance to 
build the infrastructure needed to meet the increased demand that will 
be placed on the system in the years ahead. We must act now. If we 
wait, the funding gap will be impossible to close.
         airport capital development needs continue to go unmet
    ACI-NA and AAAE have conducted numerous surveys to assess the 
capital development funding needs of all airports throughout the United 
States. The latest survey we conducted showed that U.S. airports 
required more than $10 billion each year over a six-year time period--
at least $60 billion for needed capital improvement and capacity 
expansion projects. Of this $10 billion a year, only 60 percent ($6 
billion dollars) are for projects defined as eligible for AIP funding. 
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has recently corroborated our 
findings.
    These projects are essential to increase capacity, improve safety 
and security, reduce delays for the traveling public, reduce aircraft 
noise for communities surrounding airports, help pay for unfunded 
federal mandates and regulations, and to build and improve facilities 
that will promote air service competition and the aviation industry's 
economic health.
    It has, apparently, become popular to question the needs of the 
airport community rather than finding long-term funding solutions. It 
is instructive to look at the numbers. In 1997, thanks in large measure 
to the members of this subcommittee, the aviation trust fund 
appropriation for airport construction projects (AIP) was $1.7 billion. 
Local airport Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) generated about $1.1 
billion in 1997. Combine these two revenue streams and airports receive 
less than $3 billion dollars of the $6 billion dollars needed each year 
that is acknowledged as eligible for federal funding. We know of no 
organization that questions whether there are $6 billion a year in AIP-
eligible projects (this figure has been corroborated by FAA), although 
some have an interest in questioning how necessary some of these 
projects are. There should be no question that this is a solid figure 
and these projects are indeed necessary.
                              aip funding
    Mr. Chairman, last year's funding level of $1.7 billion represents 
a significant step toward restoring AIP to adequate funding levels, 
however, it is still $200 million below the fiscal year 1992 funding 
level, and since that time, the system has grown by more than 100 
million enplanements. By any measure, airports have lost ground. If 
Congress permits funding for AIP to remain stagnant, without giving 
airports additional tools to raise needed funds, the national system of 
airports we enjoy and rely on today will be jeopardized.
    Simply put, current funding levels for AIP are inadequate to meet 
the needs of the system today, and with every day that goes by, we are 
falling further behind. The airport community needs a fully funded AIP 
program, in excess of $2 billion a year to help support needed safety, 
security, capacity and noise projects. As we noted above, at minimum, 
Congress should enact a funding level of at least $2 billion, 
consistent with the recommendations of the NCARC and ATA. We must act 
now to close the gap between the needs of the system and what is 
contributed to the federal Airport and Airway Trust Fund to meet those 
needs. Simultaneously, Congress must begin to focus on other, non-
federal means to enable airport operators to generate adequate funds 
for capital improvement projects, to make up for the shortfall in AIP 
funding and to begin bridging the gap between airport funding sources 
and needs.
    Before closing Mr. Chairman, we also want to bring two additional 
items to your attention. First, we note the importance of the FAA 
Contract Tower program. It is imperative that Congress continue to 
fully fund and expand the FAA Contract Tower program where appropriate. 
This program enhances safety, provides significant savings to the FAA 
and increases economic productivity at the 160 airports that are 
currently participating in the program (180 airports by the end of 
fiscal year 1998).
    And finally, we are very appreciative of the language crafted by 
the House subcommittee and agreed to by this subcommittee in the final 
report last year dealing with the responsibility of funding for 
navigational aids. The FAA last year had a proposal in the National 
Airspace System Architecture plan to transfer responsibility for 
current and future visual navigational aids, presently owned and 
operated by the FAA, over to the airport community. The language 
included in last year's House report and the language ultimately 
adopted in the final report (which instructs the FAA not to move 
forward on any proposal to shift funding responsibility for navigation 
and landing aids from the FAA to other parties without Congressional 
authorization) continues to be helpful to airports. We ask that you 
once again include this language in your fiscal year 1999 report.
    Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and other members 
of the subcommittee and the staff to fashion a bill this year that 
balances the competing needs of the entire transportation community 
fairly. Clearly, it won't be an easy job and we appreciate your 
leadership.
     Letter From Charles Barclay, American Association of Airport 
                           Executives, et al.
                                                    March 16, 1998.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman, Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, U.S. Senate, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Shelby: As your subcommittee continues its work on 
the fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation appropriations bill, 
we would like to ask you to consider the vital part airport 
infrastructure plays in our country's global competitiveness and 
encourage you to find the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) at no less 
than $2 billion.
    The Airport Improvement Program funds needed safety, security, 
capacity and noise projects at airports in every state in the nation. 
For fiscal year 1999, the administration has proposed an AIP funding 
level of $1.7 billion, which is the current level of the program. The 
$1.7 billion request is a solid point, but still does not meet the 
critical needs of airports. The $2 billion funding level represents a 
consensus of not only airports, and airlines, but of the national Civil 
Aviation Review Commission and the undersigned organizations.
    Commercial service and general aviation airports are ``economic 
engines'' that generate and support local economic development by 
providing complete transportation services, stimulating business 
activity and investment, and creating jobs. The U.S. Department of 
Transportation and others have conducted studies that show for every $1 
billion invested in airport development, approximately 40,000-50,000 
jobs are created and sustained. Investment in our nation's airports 
returns enormous dividends to citizens, travelers and shippers, as well 
as to the airlines and others whose businesses provide or depend upon 
aviation services.
    As we move toward global economic competition, airport capacity in 
the United States is increasingly critical to our national economy. The 
United States, due to its size and geography, must have an efficient, 
high capacity airport system to move its people and resources in order 
to compete.
    Since airport construction projects, on average, take 10 years to 
complete, investment in our nation's aviation infrastructure is needed 
now to meet the capacity demands of the future. If under-investment in 
AIP is allowed to continue, it will exacerbate the significant capacity 
and delay problems that users of our system already face today.
    We recognize that you and your colleagues are faced with very 
difficult choices regarding the allocation of scarce resources and 
appreciate your leadership on this issue. We respectfully request that 
your bill for fiscal year 1999 include at least $2 billion for the 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
            Sincerely,
                    Charles Barclay, American Association of Airport 
                            Executives; David Z. Plavin, Airport 
                            Council International-North America; Carol 
                            Hallett, Air Transport Association; Stephen 
                            Alterman, Cargo Airline Association; Phil 
                            Boyer, Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
                            Association; Henry Ogrodzinski, National 
                            Association of State Aviation Officials; 
                            Don Fuqua, Aerospace Industries 
                            Association; Valentin J. Riva, American 
                            Concrete Pavement Association; Stephen 
                            Sandherr, Associated General Contractors; 
                            Nancy West, Airport Minority Advisory 
                            Council; Paula Bline, Airport Consultants 
                            Council; Peggy Hudson, American Portland 
                            Cement Alliance; Luther Graef, American 
                            Society of Civil Engineers; Larry Naake, 
                            National Association of Counties; Howard M. 
                            Messner, American Consulting Engineers 
                            Council; Mike Acott, National Asphalt 
                            Pavement Association; Donald J. Borut, 
                            National League of Cities; T. Peter Ruane, 
                            American Road & Transportation Builders 
                            Assoc.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Foote, Chief of Staff, Office of Mayor 
             Wellington Webb, City and County of Denver, CO
                        introduction and summary
    Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mayor Wellington Webb of the City and 
County of Denver, I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit 
this testimony for the record and to be able to tell you that on 
February 28, 1998, Denver International Airport successfully completed 
its third full year of operations.
    Mr. Chairman, if you or any of your colleagues on this Subcommittee 
have not seen DIA, I would like to extend an invitation to you to visit 
the airport and have Mayor Webb give you a personal tour of this state-
of-the-art airport. With several major airports being built elsewhere 
around the world, they all come to Denver to see how to do it and we 
are very proud to display America's high level of expertise in airport 
technology. Last year, DIA was presented the Outstanding Civil 
Engineering Achievement Award by the American Society of Civil 
Engineers in recognition of its notable design and excellent 
construction and DIA is among 100 major public works and infrastructure 
projects worldwide that is vying for recognition as one of the Top 10 
Construction Achievements of the 20th century.
    DIA would not have been possible without funding appropriated by 
this Subcommittee for the Airport Improvement Program, which enabled 
the FAA to provide grants, and for equipment and facilities for this 
nationally-important project. DIA was the first major airport built in 
the United States in over 20 years. It is a critical component of our 
national aviation system and our transportation infrastructure that 
you, Mr. Chairman, and your fellow Members are working so hard to 
improve. Without Congress, DOT, the FAA and the City of Denver, all 
working together closely, DIA would not have happened.
    Today, I would like to give you an update on our operations and 
also to seek your continued support of our effort to complete DIA's 
airfield by completing our sixth runway, which was part of the original 
airport plan and is now an important, missing component of the airport.
    There are three main reasons why DIA was built.
    One was to provide a more efficient, cost-effective and user-
friendly facility for the citizens of the City of Denver, the State of 
Colorado and the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains regions, and the 
millions of visitors who are so important to our economy. For them, DIA 
is the gateway to the rest of the country and the world.
    The second, closely tied to the first, was to provide a more cost-
effective and efficient hub by reducing the delays at the old Stapleton 
Airport that were severely and negatively impacting the nation's air 
transportation system and were keeping Denver from taking full 
advantage of its central geographic location.
    Third, Stapleton was the source of serious noise problems that 
needed to be solved. Stapleton was located only seven miles from 
downtown Denver and was surrounded on three sides by residential 
communities. About 14,000 people lived within the 65 dB DNL contour--
the noise level which the FAA has determined is eligible for noise 
mitigation programs.
    I can report to you today that DIA has attained or exceeded 
expectations as to each of these goals. The Airport's revenues have 
exceeded its expenses in each of its three years of existence; it is 
highly efficient and one of the world's most user-friendly airports; it 
had the second lowest percentage of delays among the nation's 20 
busiest airports in 1997, which was good news not only for Denver but 
for the national system; and we have dramatically reduced the number of 
people within the 65 db DNL noise contour from about 14,000 to less 
than 200.
    In sum, DIA has made a major contribution to the efficiency of the 
carriers operating at the Airport and to the national air 
transportation system through reduced flight delays and fuel savings 
and has dramatically improved the impact of noise on those who were 
most heavily affected.
    Let me now turn to more specifics about the results of DIA's first 
three years of operation.
                        dia is financially sound
    DIA's record of performance reflects the fact that the Airport is 
well-managed by the City and financially sound. For 1997, we handled 
about 34.9 million passengers, an 8 percent increase over 1996 and the 
highest ever for Denver. This solid traffic level is evidence of 
Denver's strong origin and destination market and its central 
geographic location for east-west hubbing operations. For 1997, our net 
revenues, i.e., revenues less operating expenses and debt payments, 
were about $17.6 million. Under our agreement with the airlines, 80 
percent of these net revenues are provided to the carriers, which 
reduces their costs at DIA.
    We have carefully managed our revenue sources, such as concessions 
and parking, as well as our costs, particularly through successful 
refinancing of our debt obligations, which has created important 
savings that are shared with the air carriers. Our strong financial 
performance has enabled us to reduce our costs per enplanement, which 
were projected to be $18.02 when we opened in 1995, to about $16.22 by 
the end of 1997, a 10 percent reduction. As we enter our fourth year of 
operations, we expect that DIA will continue to have an excellent 
record and will continue to be one of the world's most efficient 
airports.
                  dia has substantially reduced delays
    Our second major goal was to reduce delays. For 1997, we had 2.9 
delays per thousand operations, the second best percentage among the 
top 20 U.S. airports. In contrast, we suffered 14 delays per thousand 
operations at Stapleton, one of the worst records in the United States. 
Stapleton, a major connecting airport for travelers flying between the 
eastern and western parts of the country, was a terrible bottleneck 
during bad weather. While Stapleton could handle 88 air carrier jet 
arrivals per hour on two runways in good weather, it would be down to 
only one runway and barely 32 arrivals per hour in a storm, causing 
tremendous backups throughout our national system. That was one of the 
major reasons for then-Secretary of Transportation Skinner's strong 
support without which DIA would never have been built.
    Since DIA opened, its benefits to the national system are 
dramatically reflected in the on-time statistics I just cited. Closer 
to home, on the day we opened, Denver was hit by a snowstorm that would 
have crippled Stapleton, leaving it with only one runway capable of 
handling 32 operations per hour. Yet, DIA had three runways operating 
simultaneously with a capacity to handle up to 120 flights per hour.
          dia has substantially reduced aircraft noise impacts
    Our third major goal was to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on 
the people of our communities. Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Subcommittee, we have probably achieved more in reducing airport noise 
significantly for our citizens than any large airport in the nation. We 
did that by moving the airport from seven miles from downtown to 23 
miles from downtown. That took us from a very high population density 
area to one with very low population density. We also acquired 53 
square miles (34,000 acres)--twice the size of Manhattan--to give us a 
large buffer zone around the airport. As a result, the number of people 
who now live within an area defined as the 65dB noise contour is down 
from 14,000 at Stapleton to less than 200 at DIA.
    Notwithstanding this outstanding progress, Denver continues to be 
prohibited from applying for AIP funds to complete DIA's sixth runway.
    As we have testified in prior years, DIA was designed to have six 
runways, giving it a balanced airfield for arrivals and departures. We 
completed the first five runways prior to opening. The FAA awarded 
Denver a $10 million AIP grant for the site preparation work for the 
sixth runway in 1993. This work was completed in 1996. Since then, 
unfortunately, construction has been halted by the Appropriations 
Committee's funding prohibition, which was first imposed in the fiscal 
year 1995 Transportation Appropriations Bill, prior to DIA's opening. 
The prohibition is there not because we are violating the law or doing 
anything improper. Given DIA's record of success over the past three 
years, the prohibition is clearly not warranted. However, we understand 
that noise complaints have now become the justification for the 
prohibition.
    It is a fact that, notwithstanding the great reduction in our noise 
impacted population, DIA, like every major airport in the nation, still 
receives noise complaints. However, the complaints must be viewed in 
perspective. The DIA noise complaint database for the period September 
1996 through August 1997 showed that ten addresses made a total of 
about 36,000 calls or about 50 percent of all calls. Some calls came 
from individuals as far as 50 miles away where the noise impact is 
significantly below 40 dB. The noise levels for many of these 
individuals, while no doubt bothersome to them, are not within the 
FAA's established criteria, so that there are no Federal resources 
available for mitigation purposes. Nonetheless, we have taken these 
community concerns very seriously and have worked to address them.
    Several years ago, after DIA opened, Denver established a technical 
task force consisting of experts from DIA, United Airlines, other 
airlines at DIA, noise and airspace consultants and seven nearby 
counties to address the noise impacts on all the surrounding 
communities. In 1995, the Task Force issued nine recommendations, 
including construction of DIA's sixth runway. Denver and the FAA have 
implemented seven of these recommendations. The eighth recommendation 
is under review. The ninth recommendation is the sixth runway. While 
these efforts have reduced the noise impacts, Denver has gone the extra 
mile in taking even further steps.
    In August, 1997, Denver and seven of the counties near DIA formally 
organized the DIA Study Coordination Group, a non-profit corporation, 
to perform a comprehensive and costly analysis of the noise caused by 
aircraft using DIA and to develop recommendations to address the noise 
concerns. The Group retained Wyle Laboratories, a national, highly-
regarded, independent consultant, to perform the study. The results 
were announced on March 3, 1998 and can be summarized as follows:
The Sixth Runway Has No Significant Impact On Noise.
    One of the Study's most important findings is that the Sixth Runway 
``would not substantially change the number of persons impacted'' by 
aircraft noise. This conclusion breaks the linkage of noise to the 
sixth runway that opponents had been trying to forge and exposes such 
efforts as without a factual foundation. In fact, although it was not 
studied, the consultants suggested that the new runway may further 
mitigate noise because of the additional options it would provide the 
FAA in regulating traffic flow.
The Number of People Adversely Impacted under Existing Federal 
        Standards Is Small.
    Of the 1.2 million people covered by the Study, only 198 (0.02 
percent) are within the 65 dB or greater noise band, one of the best 
records for any major airport in the world. This is the only group for 
which Congress has established a program of Federal funding for noise 
mitigation.
Changing DIA's Flight Paths Could Reduce Noise Impacts Even Further.
    By changing flight paths, the number of people in the 55 to 65 dB 
contour could, optimally, be reduced by 77 percent, from 91,262 to 
21,609.
The Noise Impacts from Buckley Air National Guard Base and Centennial 
        Airport Are Greater Than the Noise Impacts from DIA.
    The Study also revealed that those who are within the 55 to 65 dB 
noise contours are largely living within contours generated by air 
traffic at close-by Buckley, an Air National Guard Base, and Centennial 
Airport, a general aviation airport. Notably, these are not contours 
created by DIA's flight operations. Yet, DIA, not these other two 
airports, is being punished by the prohibition on funding.
  denver should no longer be barred from seeking aip funds for dia's 
                                 runway
    Mr. Chairman, DIA has been operating successfully for three years. 
We have done everything possible to reduce noise impacts in the 
communities around the Airport. We have fewer people seriously impacted 
by noise than any other major airport in the nation. Yet, we alone are 
discriminated against by being the only airport in the U.S. that is 
prohibited by law from even applying to the FAA for grant funds to 
build a runway. There are over 3,000 airports nationwide that are 
eligible to compete for AIP funds and we believe we merit an equal 
right to compete by having the statutory prohibition lifted. If there 
are continuing concerns with DIA, we will work with Congress, the FAA 
or whoever else is involved to address them. However, punitive 
legislation like this is unfair, establishes a bad precedent and is 
simply not warranted.
    Moreover, continuing the prohibition punishes not only the people 
of Colorado but the entire nation. DIA is a national asset. About 60 
percent of the 35 million passengers using DIA each year come from 
states other than Colorado. Thus, the AIP funding prohibition hurts not 
only DIA, but travelers throughout the country.
    In summary, Mr. Chairman, I am not asking this Subcommittee to give 
us AIP funds for the sixth runway. I am simply asking this Subcommittee 
to let the AIP statutory criteria and FAA regulations apply to DIA, 
just as they do to thousands of other airports nationwide, and ask that 
you not re-enact, for a fifth straight year, the prohibition on AIP 
funding for DIA's sixth runway.
    Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
      Prepared Statement of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
    Senator Shelby and distinguished members of the Senate 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee: The Greater Orlando 
Aviation Authority (GOAA) is extremely pleased to submit written 
testimony to you and deeply appreciates this opportunity to provide 
your committee with the current status of the development of Orlando 
International Airport (OIA). GOAA is very grateful for the past support 
of this committee and will strive to maintain your trust and 
confidence. The future ability of the National Aviation System to 
ensure safe and secure air transportation depends on a well funded 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) which provides the Federal Aviation 
Administration the financial resources needed to underwrite critical 
capacity improvement projects. GOAA respectfully requests the Senate 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to fully fund AIP at no less 
than $2 billion. Airfield improvements are intended to increase needed 
capacity, provide increased flight operation safety, and enhance the 
efficiency of the National Aviation System. The AIP is an essential 
component of the financial strategy to ensure airports have the 
resources necessary to design and construct basic airfield 
improvements.
    On January 16, 1998 GOAA submitted a formal request to the FAA for 
a ``Letter of Intent'' to obtain funding for a North Crossfield Taxiway 
System. The estimated cost of the taxiway is $76.4 million. The 
requested ``Letter of Intent'' is for a four-year period and allocates 
both entitlement and discretionary grants. The total amount of the 
federal share is $42 million with GOAA providing a 33 percent match. 
Timely construction of the North Crossfield Taxiway is important for 
two reasons. It is absolutely essential that the taxiway be operational 
before the airport's two Mid-Field Taxiways are temporarily closed for 
bridge expansion. In addition, the efficient use of the new airside 
building depends on the ability of aircraft to have improved access to 
the apron area. As part of the ``Letter of Intent'' submission process, 
GOAA has prepared the required Benefit-Cost Analysis indicating the 
taxiway provides a positive benefit and offers significant aircraft 
operational savings. The final design of the taxiway should be 
completed by April 1, 1998. GOAA will be able to award a construction 
contract for the project by October 1, 1998. GOAA would like the 
support of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for 
this project and request you to direct the FAA to give this funding 
request priority consideration.
    GOAA and its airline partners have recently approved a $1.2 billion 
capital improvement program. Funding for this program includes revenue 
bonds, state grants, Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenue, and other 
airport funding sources. Federal participation has been strictly 
limited to airfield capacity improvements and represents only 5 percent 
of project costs. Consequently, GOAA has pledged $1.14 billion for the 
design and construction of a new airside building, expanded public 
parking facilities, existing and new terminal development, as well as a 
new $27 million Air Traffic Control Tower completely funded without any 
FAA participation.
    Past aggressive planning efforts have enabled OIA to respond to a 
phenomenal growth rate over the last sixteen years. Forecasts indicate 
OIA will experience annual growth of 7-10 percent during the next five 
years.
    In 1997 OIA recorded an 8 percent growth rate representing an 
additional 2 million passengers over the previous year. By the end of 
1998, OIA will serve more than 29 million passengers and handle 360,000 
flight operations. Since 1996 OIA has ranked among the world's fastest 
growing airports and in 1997 was second in the United States for 
passenger growth.
    As the most popular tourist destination in the United States, OIA's 
passenger traffic is unlike most other airports. Approximately 85 
percent of the passengers using OIA are destined for our community. 
This is a unique phenomena for a large-hub airport, which requires 
extensive infrastructure to transfer passengers from airlines to 
various modes of surface transportation making surface access a key 
component of OIA's development. Air service to Orlando is extremely 
competitive with the largest air carrier representing less than 30 
percent of the overall market. Only a few other major airports share a 
similar profile, as the majority of large-hub airports depend upon one 
or two major airlines for air service.
    Orlando International Airport shares a unique relationship with the 
regional economy. A recently completed economic impact study determined 
OIA generates a $14 billion annual impact and is responsible for 54,000 
jobs.
    The future growth of OIA is directly related to the expansion and 
development of three major theme parks and support services. Walt 
Disney World is only 25 percent developed and will open its newest 
attraction later this year. Universal Studios is currently undertaking 
a 7 year, $3 billion expansion program and plans to employ 14,000 
workers. The Orange County Convention Center recently expanded, making 
Orlando among the top five convention locations in the country. Sea 
World continues to attract more guests each year and is currently 
planning a major expansion program. As these attractions gain more 
popularity, OIA will serve as the domestic and international gateway 
for at least half of the guests arriving in Central Florida. Increased 
employment opportunities, corporate relocations, and rapid population 
growth will also contribute to the demand for further development of 
OIA.
    OIA encompasses 15,000 acres of land. It is the largest commercial 
airport on the East Coast of the United States and possesses the 
ability to provide nearly unlimited future airfield capacity.
    As part of the National Aviation System, OIA has the potential to 
positively influence air traffic and limit future operational delays.
    The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority is extremely proud of 
Orlando International Airport and believes it represents a model for 
airport development. Our continued success requires federal 
participation in new airfield improvements and is closely aligned with 
the timely construction of the North Crossfield Taxiway. AIP is an 
essential part of the airport's funding strategy. The full funding of 
this most important program will enable OIA to receive the federal 
assistance needed to complete the project on time, without any 
unnecessary costs or delays.
    In closing, we would like to express our gratitude for allowing 
GOAA to submit this testimony. We hope that our comments have provided 
you with a better understanding of the future expansion and financial 
dynamics impacting Orlando International Airport.

                      Letter From F. Lee Tillotson

                Greater Orlando Aviation Authority,
                             Orlando International Airport,
                                     Orlando, FL, January 16, 1998.
Mr. Charles E. Blair,
Manager, Orlando Airport District Office, Federal Aviation 
        Administration, Orlando, FL.
    Dear Mr. Blair: On January 23, 1997 the Greater Orlando Aviation 
Authority submitted a request to the Federal Aviation Administration 
for a ``Letter of Intent'' to partially fund the construction of three 
essential airfield improvements at Orlando International Airport. After 
the submission of this request, it was determined the funding for the 
North Crossfield Taxiway project required priority consideration. 
Therefore, the Authority would like to withdraw its original request 
and submit a separate ``Letter of Intent'' for the North Crossfield 
Taxiway alone. The reconstruction of Runway 18R/36L project is 
currently in the design phase and we anticipate submitting a grant 
application for these costs to the FM within the next sixty days. 
Further federal participation in the East Airfield Development project 
(4th runway) will be requested at a later date.
    The North Crossfield Taxiway is a critical airfield capacity 
improvement needed to support a new airside building. In addition, it 
is absolutely imperative the taxiway is fully operational prior to the 
planned temporary closure and expansion of the two Mid-Crossfield 
Taxiways and associated bridges. The successful planning, design, and 
construction of a south terminal complex greatly depends on the timely 
completion of these two capacity improvements.
    The estimated total cost of the taxiway is $76.4 million, which 
includes contingencies. The FM has already awarded a $3 million 1997 
discretionary grant and programmed 1998 entitlement funds for the first 
phase of this project. Phase two requires $42.6 million in matching 
federal funds. The proposed ``Letter of Intent'' commits entitlement 
funds of $17.6 million over a four-year period and requests an annual 
$6.25 million discretionary grant for the same period. The final design 
of the taxiway should be completed by April 1, 1998. Thus, actual 
construction could commence as early as October 1, 1998. The approval 
of the attached ``Letter of Intent'' will enable the Authority to 
proceed with this much-needed project without incurring excessive 
delays or costs. The attached spreadsheet displays the funding cycle 
beginning with fiscal year 1999 and continuing through fiscal year 
2002.
    A review of project costs and funding sources indicates the 
Authority is providing a 33 percent funding match. The attached 
Benefit-Cost Analysis has been prepared in accordance with current FAA 
guidelines. The net present value of the project is estimated at $40 
million with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.7, which indicates that the 
benefits of the taxiway exceed its costs. The federal share of project 
costs represents less than 4.2 percent of the $1.2 billion airport 
capital improvement program.
    As Orlando International Airport continues to be among the world's 
fastest growing airports, the future development of new and expanded 
terminal and airfield facilities becomes critically important as 
passenger traffic demands increase. The National Aviation System is 
well served by Orlando International Airport and benefits from the 
airport's vast land-resources capable of offering nearly unlimited 
future growth. As the airport's capacity increases, the regional 
economic impact of $14 billion related to aviation activities will 
expand and add to the 60,000 jobs dependent on airport operations.
    The Tower Chief at the Orlando Air Traffic Control Tower has 
written the attached letter supporting the need for the North 
Crossfield Taxiway. The Authority is confident with this type of 
support the FAA will recognize the vital nature of this project and 
approve the request for a four-year ``Letter of Intent'' and award 
annual grants as previously defined. Thank you for your attention in 
this matter. If you require any additional information, please do not 
hesitate to contact my office.
            Sincerely,
                                          F. Lee Tillotson,
                 Senior Director for Planning and Special Projects.

                              Attachment 1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.000

 Pre-Application for Federal Assistance, Request for Letter of Intent, 
Pre-Application No. OIA-01-98P, Airport Improvement Project for Orlando 
                         International Airport.

                    single north crossfield taxiway
Project Description
    The proposed bi-directional single north Crossfield taxiway would 
be approximately 7,000 feet long and 75 feet wide and would allow for 
the connection of Runway 18L with Runway 17. The Taxiway will also 
directly connect to apron areas associated with the existing northwest 
airside and future northeast airside.
    Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) in the amount of $3,500,000 has 
been allocated for design of Phases 1 A and B for this project in PFC 
Application # 3. In addition, PFC's in the amount of $19,105,000 has 
been approved for construction of this project in PFC Application # 5. 
Phase 1A construction has commenced, with commencement of Phase 1B 
construction by September 1998.
Justification
    The North Crossfield Taxiway is a critical component of the major 
overall capacity improvements that are planned for Orlando 
International Airport (OIA). The FAA Air Traffic Control Manager at OIA 
wrote to the Authority in March of 1993 and stated, ``The single north 
Crossfield taxiway that is in the planning stages is a step in the 
right direction. However, based on our recent conversations with you 
about future growth patterns, it is evident that dual north Crossfield 
taxiways are mandatory. Accordingly, we ask your immediate and full 
consideration of this issue as we are convinced the `bottlenecking' of 
taxiing aircraft could become the greatest constraint to an efficiently 
operating airport.'' In addition, a second letter was forwarded from 
the Air Traffic Control Tower Manager in December 1997.
    Based upon this request, an Airport Capacity Enhancement Tactical 
Initiative for the North Crossfield Taxiway System was prepared jointly 
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, and the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority. The 
organization that initiated this effort was the FAA's Office of System 
Capacity and Requirements (ASC) in Washington, DC. The findings of this 
study indicated that FAA's position is that a single North Crossfield 
Taxiway will provide significant cost savings at all demand levels and 
was needed as early as 1993.
    The Authority has an impose and use PFC for designing tunnels and 
bridges for Mid Crossfield Taxiways which currently provide the only 
access between the east and west runways and related operational areas. 
This project is expected to proceed in the near future and will require 
shutting down both of the Mid Crossfield Taxiways at separate times to 
allow construction. If this occurs, OIA will be reduced to one-way 
traffic between the inboard runways, which is separated by 8,400 feet. 
Therefore, the single lane North Crossfield Taxiway must be operational 
before the Mid Crossfield Taxiways can be closed for construction, 
thereby enormously increasing the urgency of the North Crossfield 
Taxiway.
    In addition, the Authority is proceeding with the development of a 
16 gate Airside 2 and intends to proceed with the continued development 
of the Fourth Runway to be completed by the year 2000. The surface 
operations generated by the opening of the Fourth Runway and the 
completion of Airside 2 for airline operations will diminish the 
ability of the Mid Crossfield Taxiways to effectively accommodate east 
and west aircraft operations with the North Crossfield Taxiway in 
place.
    The only effective way to avoid substantial aircraft delays and FAA 
Air Traffic Control Tower operational problems is to construct a North 
Crossfield Taxiway in the earliest possible timeframe. The Authority 
has begun construction of Phase 1A to accommodate Airside 2 operations. 
Design has been completed for the entire project, and the Authority is 
initiating the preparation of contract documents including plans and 
specifications, and will be in a position to award a contract should 
the Federal share of funds be approved.
    See the attached picture of the proposed project.

                          ALLOCATION OF ENTITLEMENT AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDS BY FISCAL YEAR FOR SINGLE NORTH CROSSFIELD TAXIWAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Phase 1A                                            Phase 1B (LOI Request)
                                                 --------------------------    Total    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1997 \1\     1998 \2\                    1999         2000         2001         2002        Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements....................................  ...........   $4,006,026   $4,006,026   $4,216,788   $4,343,292   $4,473,591   $4,607,798  $17,641,489
Discretionary...................................   $3,000,001    1,679,453    4,679,454    6,240,090    6,240,090    6,240,090    6,240,090   24,960,361
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total project eligible AIP funding........    3,000,001    5,685,479    8,685,480   10,456,878   10,583,382   10,713,681   10,847,889   42,601,830
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Discretionary funding received September 30, 1997.
\2\ Entitlement funds received December 11, 1997 (excludes $87,943 for Rehab of Airside 1 and 3 Aprons). Discretionary funding anticipated in fiscal
  year 1998 in the amount of $1,600,000.
 
Note: Project Costs are derived from Capital Improvement Plan.

Memorandum From Donna Gropper, Manager, Orlando international ATC Tower
Subject: Information: Airport Construction Funding Request
To: Charles E. Blair, Airports District Office
    Over the last several years, Orlando International Airport has 
experienced double-digit growth in passenger traffic, and significant 
growth in airfield operations. The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority 
(GOAA) projects continued grower rates that exceed the national average 
in both of these areas. As airfield operations increase, it becomes 
more critical for aircraft to be directed to where there is available 
runway capacity to avoid any unnecessary delays. Currently, the airport 
has more runway capacity on the west airfield.
    GOAA has underway a $1.2 billion capital program to meet future 
traffic demands. As a part of this capital program GOAA will construct 
Airside 2, which will provide additional gate capacity. A critical 
element in the construction of Airside 2 is the construction of the 
Single North Crossfield Taxiway (SNCFT). We believe this project is 
essential for the safe and efficient movement or aircraft to and from 
the east and west airfield areas. As traffic at this airport continues 
to build, we strongly feel a dual north field taxiway will be 
necessary.
    GOAA has currently under construction the first phase of the SNCFT 
with funding assistance from the FAA, which is an important step 
forward in providing the necessary access in and around the future 
Airside 2. The second phase of this project will connect the east and 
west airfields. The completion of this phase is imperative for the 
proper management of air traffic at this airport. Without this 
connection, aircraft using Airside 2 would be required to use the Mid-
Crossfield Taxiways to move between the east and west airfields at a 
considerable cost in both time and fuel.
    In addition, GOAA plans to close Taxiways E and F, each for one 
year beginning in 2001 to expand the mid-field bridges. If the SNCFT is 
not in operation prior to these closures, significant aircraft delays 
will occur as a result of bi-directional use of a single Mid-Crossfield 
Taxiway.
    In conclusion, we support GOAA's request for federal funding for 
this project. This capital improvement will provide increased and much-
needed airfield capacity and safety.
    If I can provide you with any additional information, do not 
hesitate to contact me.
   Final Report--Benefit-Cost Analysis of North Crossfield Taxiway, 
                     Orlando International Airport
  executive summary--benefit-cost analysis of north crossfield taxiway
    Leigh Fisher Associates was retained in August 1997 by the Greater 
Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) to perform a benefit-cost analysis of 
the proposed North Crossfield Taxiway at Orlando International Airport. 
This analysis was conducted in accordance with the draft FAA Airport 
Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance, dated June 2, 1997.
                               conclusion
    As shown on Table E-1, the North Crossfield Taxiway was estimated 
to have a net present value of approximately $40 million \1\ and a 
benefit-cost ratio of 1.7, indicating that the benefits of the taxiway 
exceed its costs. Because the present value of project benefits exceeds 
the present value of project costs, the taxiway meets FAA criteria to 
be considered as a candidate for discretionary funding under the 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) through a Letter of Intent (LOI), as 
stated in the FAA's Policy for Letter of Intent Approvals under the 
Airport Improvement Program [59 FR 54482], dated October 31, 1994; and 
reaffirmed in the FAA's interim Policy and Guidance Regarding Benefit 
Cost Analysis for Airport Capacity Projects Requesting Discretionary 
Airport Improvement Program Grant Awards and Letters of Intent [62 FR 
121], dated June 24, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Except where otherwise noted, all dollar values shown in this 
Executive Summary are expressed in 1997 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table E-1.--Comparison of the estimated benefits and costs of the North 
                 Crossfield Taxiway--1997 present value

                     [Millions of 1997 dollars \1\]

                                                                Millions
Project benefits..................................................$100.0
Project costs.....................................................  60.0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Net present value...........................................  40.0
Benefit-cost ratio................................................   1.7

\1\ Assuming a 7 percent real discount rate.

Source: Leigh Fisher Associates, January 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     evaluation of project benefits
    Project benefits quantified in this analysis were limited to 
reductions in aircraft taxiing time and ground delay resulting from the 
availability of the proposed taxiway. These benefits were estimated 
using the FAA Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD) and the 
results of previous analyses of the North Crossfield Taxiway performed 
by the FAA It was assumed at, (1) the North Crossfield Taxiway will 
open in 2001 as currency scheduled; \1\ (2) 16 new aircraft gates will 
be provided at the new Airside 2 by 2001; and (3) Taxiways E and F will 
be closed sequentially in 2001 and 2002 to facilitate reconstruction of 
taxiway bridges over Airport Boulevard South. Other benefits--such as 
increased ground control flexibility, reduced ground controller 
workload, and increased margins of safety--were not quantified because 
of the difficulty in reliably estimating dollar values for these 
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The effects of changes in the opening date of the North 
Crossfield Taxiway on the results of the analysis were evaluated in a 
sensitivity test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reductions in aircraft taxiing time associated with the North 
Crossfield Taxiway were estimated using the results of operational 
analyses presented in the FAA's Airport Capacity Enhancement Tactical 
Initiative, North Crossfield Taxiway System, Orlando International 
Airport, dated November 1995. These results indicated that provision of 
the North Crossfield Taxiway would reduce aircraft taxiing times by 
about 0.3 minute per aircraft operation. In 2003--the year that 
Taxiways E and F are expected to reopen after being closed for two 
years for reconstruction--these taxiing time reductions equate to 
annual savings in aircraft operating costs of about $4 million and 
savings in passenger time value of about $5 million.
    The results of the SIMMOD analysis were combined with the results 
of operational analyses presented in the FAA's Airport Capacity 
Enhancement Tactical Initiative to evaluate the benefits provided by 
the North Crossfield Taxiway during the planned closures of Taxiways E 
and F in 2001 and 2002. The results of the SIMMOD analysis indicate 
that, during these taxiway closures, the North Crossfield Taxiway would 
reduce aircraft ground delay by approximately 0.1 minute per aircraft 
operation. Combined with the reductions in aircraft taxiing time 
described in the previous paragraph, the average reductions in aircraft 
taxiing time and ground delay during the closures of Taxiways E and F 
would be about 0.4 minutes per aircraft operation. At activity levels 
estimated for 2001, these reductions would equate to annual savings in 
aircraft direct operating costs of about $5 million and annual savings 
in passenger time value of about $6 million.
    The results of the SIMMOD and FAA analyses indicate that the 
present value of savings in aircraft direct operating costs and 
passenger time associated with the North Crossfield Taxiway over the 
assumed 20-year economic lifetime of the taxiway (i.e., 2001 through 
2020) would be approximately $100 million.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Present values were calculated using the FAA prescribed real 
discount rate of 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      evaluation of project costs
    The construction costs of the North Crossfield Taxiway, as provided 
by GOAA, are estimated to be about $72 million. This cost--expressed in 
1997 dollars--differs from the $76.4 million cost of the taxiway 
presented in the Orlando International Airport Capital Improvement 
Plan, 1997-2001, because the cost estimates contained in the Capital 
Improvement Plan are expressed in dollars escalated to the midpoint of 
project construction rather than in 1997 dollars. It is estimated that 
an additional $100,000 per year would be required to maintain the 
taxiway after it is opened. Assuming that the taxiway is constructed 
between 1997 and 2000 as currently planned, the present value of these 
costs minus the salvage value of taxiway-related improvements remaining 
at the end of the 20-year economic lifetime of the project would be 
approximately $60 million.
                comparison of project benefits and costs
    The net present value of a project is calculated by subtracting the 
present value of project costs from the present value of project 
benefits. The benefit-cost ratio of a project is computed by dividing 
the present value of project benefits by the present value of project 
costs. The higher the net present values and benefit-cost ratios 
associated with a project are, the greater the economic justification 
for a project is. As mentioned previously, the net present value of the 
North Crossfield Taxiway is estimated to be $40 million.
    Four sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the effects of 
unexpected changes in Airport activity, project benefits, project 
costs, and project schedules on the results of the analysis. The 
results of these sensitivity tests indicate that the North Crossfield 
Taxiway would continue to be economically justified (i.e., the present 
values of project benefits would exceed the present value of project 
costs) even if (1) aircraft and passenger activity increases according 
to the 1996 FAA Terminal Area Forecast for the Airports, (2) the 
benefits of the taxiway are 10 percent lower than estimated, (3) the 
costs of the taxiway are 10 percent higher than estimated, and (4) the 
taxiway were to take 6 years rather than 4 years to implement.
                                 ______
                                 
                     Coast Guard-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of Master Chief Joe Barnes, USN (Retired), Director, 
            Legislative Programs, Fleet Reserve Association
             certification of non-receipt of federal funds
    Pursuant to the requirements of House Rule XI, the Fleet Reserve 
Association has not received any federal grant or contract during the 
current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
                              introduction
    Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: The 
Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) wishes to express its sincere 
appreciation for the opportunity to present its position on the fiscal 
year 1999 Coast Guard Budget.
    The FRA was founded in 1922 and now represents nearly 160,000 
active duty, reserve, and retired members of the Coast Guard, Navy, and 
Marine Corps. In recognition for its work on personnel issues so 
important to the men and women serving in our Nation's uniformed 
services, the association was granted a Federal Charter by Congress in 
1996. In keeping with the Association's mission, personnel issues are 
the focus of this statement.
                the coast guard's service to our country
    The United States Coast Guard provides invaluable service to our 
country and offers a tremendous return each year on the taxpayer's 
investment. Although largely unnoticed and often unpublicized, these 
services include saving thousands of lives and assisting tens of 
thousands in distress; saving and protecting billions of dollars worth 
of property; preventing drugs from entering our country; intercepting 
illegal immigrants; maintaining over 50,000 aids to navigation; 
performing merchant ship inspections and licensing 36,000 merchant 
mariners. In addition, the Coast Guard is active in responding to 
thousands of water pollution reports and supervising hundreds of oil 
and chemical spills.
    Because of this tremendous service to our country, FRA strongly 
supports full funding of the Coast Guard at the level requested by the 
Administration in its fiscal year 1999 Budget plus an increased 
appropriation beyond the budget request. It is noteworthy that the 
fiscal year 1999 request does not fully support the $125 million 
required for pay raises, cost of living increases and other statutorily 
mandated increases above the fiscal year 1998 enacted appropriation. 
Therefore, a shortfall of $68 million must be absorbed by the Coast 
Guard an unrealistic proposal for an agency that has already 
streamlined to its smallest force strength since 1965. Members of the 
Subcommittee are respectfully reminded that parity with DOD is of 
utmost importance in the areas of pay and benefits, and that requiring 
the Coast Guard to pay for increased active duty pay hikes, retiree 
cost of living adjustments and other increases from operations and 
maintenance accounts is counterproductive and degrades the Coast 
Guard's ability to provide services critical to the American public.
                            personnel issues
    Increased operational commitments following the final phase of 
personnel reductions implemented by the Commandant's ``stream lining'' 
initiative are resulting in high personnel tempo. Many personnel are 
working in excess of 80 hours per week to meet mission demands. The 
Coast Guard is also 1,000 personnel below authorized active-duty 
manpower levels, and 800 short in the Reserve component. Therefore 
restoration of $18.4 million to the military pay account is critical 
since that reduction was imposed due to the slow hiring and last year's 
below end-strength levels.
    The Coast Guard faces increasing challenges in its efforts to 
recruit qualified personnel due to aggressive, well-financed and 
focused efforts by private industry and the Department of Defense's 
$125 million recruit advertising budget. The strong economy and 
diminishing interest by young people in joining the military also 
contribute to the challenge of maintaining an effective, equitably 
staffed work force in all job specialties.
    The 1996 Report to Congress regarding youth attitudes toward the 
military includes data from the Youth Attitude Tracking Survey (YATS) 
indicating that interest in the military has declined significantly 
since 1991 (20.7 percent for young males and only 10.6 percent for 
females). Contributing to this is a disparity in education benefits 
offered by the Coast Guard compared to those offered by DOD. For 
example, tuition assistance varies significantly between the Coast 
Guard and DOD ($1,000 vs. $2,500 per member annually). Negative advice 
from parents about the possibility of joining the military, the 
continuing DOD draw down amid increased operational commitments, and 
proposals for even more DOD personnel cuts per the Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR) are also contributing to the decline.
    Recruiters must spend extraordinary time and effort to qualify each 
Coast Guard recruit. This equates to contacting an average of 100 leads 
for each recruit brought into the service.
                      compensation and allowances
    Full Employment Cost Index (ECI) active duty pay adjustments remain 
a top priority with not only the FRA but also The Military Coalition 
(TMC), a consortium of 26 military and veterans organizations 
representing the interests of over five million active duty, reserve, 
and retired personnel from the seven uniformed services.
    Competitive pay is vital to maintaining the all-volunteer force and 
ensuring military readiness, yet pay adjustments were capped below the 
ECI in 12 of the past 16 years resulting in a pay gap in excess of 13 
percent. Adjustments are also implemented 15 months after statistics 
are compiled, further exacerbating the gap between military and 
civilian pay.
    FRA is encouraged by inclusion of a 3.1 percent pay adjustment for 
1999, however, if Congress increases the amount of the adjustment, the 
Coast Guard may as in the past, be left to find funds to pay for the 
increase in a tight budget that barely maintains current services.
    Regarding the new basic allowance for housing (BAH), FRA thanks 
Congress for revamping this allowance by linking rates to more credible 
independent survey data compiled by zip code throughout the United 
States. However, our members are concerned about the accuracy of 
housing cost data in remote locations duty sites for thousands of Coast 
Guard enlisted personnel.
    The expansion of Reserve Special Pay authority for the Secretary of 
Transportation would provide special pay to Selected Coast Guard 
Reservists performing IDT with special units and provide an accession/
retention incentive with these units. FRA supports legislative language 
modifications authorizing this change.
    Last year, FRA strongly supported the budget request of $8 million 
for quarters/housing allowances, sea pay for 65 foot cutter crews, 
increased dislocation allowance, VHA locality floors, and increased 
travel expenses during PCS moves. Again, the Association urges adequate 
funding for these and other quality of life programs in order to 
maintain parity with DOD.
    FRA also draws attention to need for continued funding for the 
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) which expires on 1 October 1999. 
Transition services are important to all personnel separating and/or 
retiring from the uniformed services.
    Finally, FRA opposes establishment of a Uniformed Services Thrift 
Savings Plan (USTSP) due primarily to lack of support from the enlisted 
force. The plan is not targeted to junior enlisted personnel and the 
USTSP may pose another significant threat to the military retirement 
system.
                              health care
    Access to quality health care is a major concern for Coast Guard 
personnel and a major reason cited for considering a military career. 
Dramatic changes are taking place in the health care arena as DOD 
implements TRICARE, a new managed care system throughout the United 
States which requires family members to select one of three care 
options. Of special concern to Coast Guard personnel stationed in 
remote locations, is the availability and cost of accessing health 
care. The TRICARE program is flawed due in part to increasing 
difficulty that ``Prime'' and ``Standard'' enrollees have with locating 
and retaining quality health care providers. These problems must be 
fixed.
    In addition, retirees must pay annual enrollment fees for care and 
Medicare-eligible retirees are forced out of the TRICARE system and 
onto Medicare at age 65.
    These changes to the government's commitment to lifetime care are 
incomprehensible for most retirees and perceived as part of the 
continuing erosion of benefits by young uniformed service members 
contemplating career decisions. The result is a growing readiness 
challenge.
    Although not directly under the purview of your distinguished 
panel, FRA strongly urges support for H.R 1766, a bill by Rep. Jim 
Moran, (D-Va.) which would authorize a demonstration of allowing 
Medicare eligible Coast Guard and other military retirees the option of 
joining the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP).
                                housing
    Unfortunately, DOD is proposing a significantly lower budget for 
military construction and FRA has difficulty believing the 
Administration's commitment to provide adequate funding for this and 
other important quality of life programs. Family housing construction 
has decreased over 40 percent annually since 1996. Specific to the 
Coast Guard, the acquisition, construction and improvement (AC&I) 
account has been consistently underfunded well below the $600 million 
required annually to properly fund and support housing, barracks and 
other vital infrastructure needs, as well as funding required for 
necessary modernization of cutters, aircraft, and command, control and 
information systems.
    In addition, the Association stresses the importance of child care 
and physical fitness centers, and other facilities important to the 
quality of life for Coast Guard personnel and their families.
                               conclusion
    Press reports cite speculation by elected officials about a pending 
federal budget surplus. FRA strongly recommends that if a surplus is 
realized, at least a portion of the money should be appropriated to 
fund recommendations in this statement.
    The FRA wishes to express appreciation to you and other 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee for past support of quality 
of life programs benefiting Coast Guard personnel and asks for your 
endorsement of the President's budget request along with increased 
funding for vital quality of life programs.
                          Biographical Sketch
                        master chief joe barnes
    Retired Navy Master Chief Joseph L. (Joe) Barnes is director of 
legislative programs for the Fleet Reserve Association (FRA). His 
responsibilities include communicating with Congress on military 
compensation, benefit and entitlement issues, writing and presenting 
testimony, tracking legislation and speaking at FRA legislative 
seminars. He also writes legislative update columns for FRA 
publications.
    In addition, he co-chairs the Military Coalition's (TMC's) 
Committee on Military Personnel and Compensation and is a member of two 
other Coalition committees.
    Prior to his present position, he served as editor of On Watch, 
FRA's bimonthly publication distributed to 160,000 senior enlisted 
Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard members.
    He speaks regularly to Navy senior enlisted personnel at the Navy 
Senior Enlisted Academy, Newport, Rhode Island, and to senior Coast 
Guard enlisted personnel at the USCG Chief Petty Officer Academy, 
Petaluma, California, regarding quality of life legislative issues. He 
is also keynote speaker for sea service retiree seminars throughout the 
United States.
    Barnes is an accomplished writer/editor, special events coordinator 
and communications manager. He was public affairs director for the 
United States Navy Band in Washington, D.C., and directed marketing and 
promotion efforts for extensive national concert tours, network radio 
and television appearances and major special events in the nation's 
capital.
    His awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and Navy 
Commendation Medal. He holds a bachelor's degree in education and a 
master's degree in public relations management from The American 
University, Washington, D.C. He's also an accredited member of the 
International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), and a 
member of the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE).
    He is married to the former Patricia Flaherty of Wichita, KS. The 
Barnes' have three daughters, Christina, Allison, and Emily and reside 
in Fairfax, Virginia.
                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Wayne Shackelford, Commissioner, Georgia 
                      Department of Transportation
    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Wayne Shackelford, 
Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Transportation. Thank you for 
this opportunity to present our appropriations request for the Sidney 
Lanier Bridge Replacement Project, located in Brunswick, Georgia. I 
want to share with you our concerns about an undertaking that is 
crucial to both maritime and highway safety in Georgia, as well as the 
economic future of our region and nation.
    As you will recall, last year I submitted testimony to this 
committee and requested your attention on the Sidney Lanier Bridge 
Replacement Project at the Port of Brunswick in Glynn County, Georgia. 
The testimony provided additional support for the important safety and 
economic benefits of this major transportation improvement.
    In the 1990 Coast Guard Omnibus Bill, I was directed by Congress to 
remove the existing obsolete and hazardous bridge. The Commandant of 
the Coast Guard issued an order directing the state to alter the bridge 
by reconstructing it on the same general alignment. We are diligently 
complying with this order. Construction contracts amounting to $87 
million have already been awarded for the approach work and main span 
of the replacement bridge.
    Under the provisions of the Transportation Appropriations Acts of 
fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1998 Georgia has received $38.75 
million in federal appropriations to begin removal and replacement of 
the bridge. The State of Georgia has matched this appropriation with 
$38.75 million, demonstrating our firm commitment to this project.
    Under the direction of the Coast Guard, these funds have been used 
to plan, design, and begin construction on a new fixed span bridge that 
will substantially improve maritime safety and effectively remove a 
serious threat to public safety. This new high-level bridge will also 
provide the navigation clearance necessary for the Port of Brunswick to 
remain competitive in a rapidly changing global economy.
    The Port of Brunswick is an economic generator for the southeastern 
region of the United States. Working in unison with the Port of 
Savannah, Georgia's deepwater ports have far-reaching economic impacts. 
Georgia's deepwater ports contribute to the existence of over 76,000 
jobs, $1.7 billion in wages, $22 billion in revenues and $569 million 
in taxes. In federal fiscal year 1997, the Port of Brunswick alone 
collected over $31 million dollars in U.S. Customs charges. The Port 
also annually generates over $500 million in revenues and directly 
contributes to 8,400 jobs statewide.
    With replacement of the bridge and other planned port improvements, 
the Port of Brunswick will be capable of expanding its services and 
strengthening its abilities to compete internationally. The port is 
ideally located in a region of the United States that has great 
potential to benefit from both NAFTA and GATT. Already, the Port of 
Brunswick is exporting automobiles made by numerous domestic 
manufacturers and lumber products produced by American workers for 
varied uses around the world. In addition, Georgia is participating in 
the AASHTO Latin American Transportation and Trade Study (LATTS) which 
can effectively position Georgia ports for increased trade 
opportunities with Latin America.
    The port's impact will increase with the Georgia Ports Authority's 
plans to make the Port of Brunswick a major South Atlantic break bulk 
port. Additional expected economic benefits include $464 million 
annually in State sales revenues, $15.8 million per year in tax 
revenues, and 1,100 new jobs by 2010.
    Georgia's congressional delegation has requested $11.5 million in 
fiscal year 1999 to continue the replacement of the Sidney Lanier 
Bridge. The State of Georgia has committed to funding this project and 
the requested appropriation will maintain the 50 percent federal share 
provided for in Section 302 of the Coast Guard Omnibus Act of 1990. Mr. 
Chairman, we respectfully request that funding for this project 
continue to be provided under the Coast Guard appropriation, and that 
the Coast Guard continue to be the federal manager.
    Our deepwater ports at Savannah and Brunswick are a valuable asset 
for Georgia and for our nation, and they benefit the entire nation in 
the global economy in which we compete. We urgently request your help 
in achieving the maximum benefits from them for our state and the 
nation.
    Thank You.
               Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria
                  sidney lanier bridge, brunswick, ga
Criteria No. 1--Primary Congressional District 1
    Congressman: The Honorable Jack Kingston, The U.S. House of 
Representatives.
Criteria No. 2--Primary Implementation Responsibility
    Georgia Department of Transportation, No. 2 Capitol Square, 
Atlanta, GA 30334.
Criteria No. 3--Project Eligibility
    Congress designated this bridge as an unreasonable hazard to 
navigation in the 1990 Coast Guard bill, and called for its replacement 
under the Truman-Hobbs Act. The roadway and bridge are functionally 
classified as a Principal Arterial making the project eligible for 
federal funds. The project is also on the National Highway System.
Criteria No. 4--Design, scope and objectives of the project
    The principal objective of the Sidney Lanier Bridge Replacement is 
to provide the transportation infrastructure that will result in the 
safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the US 17 
corridor. Providing a high-level fixed-span bridge replacement can 
achieve this by removing the potential for bridge/ship collisions that 
continue to expose motorists and endanger lives.
    The Sidney Lanier Bridge Replacement project consists of several 
phases:
  --MLP-25(66)--US 17/SR 25--Preliminary Engineering and Design.
  --RWMLP-25(66)--US 17/SR 25--Right-of-way Acquisition.
  --MLP-25(66)--US 17/SR 25--Construction of Roadway and Approaches for 
        Sidney Lanier Bridge Replacement.
  --CG-009-2(4)--US 17/SR 25--Sidney Lanier Bridge Approaches 
        Construction Engineering and Inspection.
  --CG-009-2(1)--US 17/SR 25--Construction of Main Span of High Level 
        Sidney Lanier Replacement Bridge and removal of existing 
        bridge.
  --CG-009-2(3)--US 17/SR 25--Sidney Lanier Bridge Main Span 
        Construction Engineering and Inspection.
  --CG-009-2(2)--US 17/SR 25--Removal of the Old Sidney Lanier Bridge.
    The composite of these phases will replace the obsolete Sidney 
Lanier Bridge across the Turtle River in Brunswick.
    Beginning at the Jekyll Island Causeway (SR 520), the project will 
extend approximately 2700 feet north of the existing bridge. The 
replacement structure will be a new high-level bridge on the east, or 
downstream side, of the present lift-span bridge. The total project 
length will be approximately 1.8 miles. Estimated base year traffic 
(1996) is 12,500 ADT, with design year traffic (2016) projected to be 
18,000 ADT. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
    The existing bridge provides a width of 55 feet and a vertical 
clearance of 18 feet for the roadway. Horizontal clearance under the 
bridge for shipping is 250 feet and vertical clearance for ships is 
only 139 feet. The present bridge is 4,471 feet long with a sufficiency 
rating of 41.0 out of a possible 100.
    The proposed typical section for the approaches will include two, 
12 feet lanes in each direction with a raised median that varies from 
6.5 feet to 20 feet in width. Design speed will be 55 MPH. The cable-
stayed bridge will provide two, 12 feet lanes in each direction, with 8 
feet outside shoulders and 2 feet inside shoulders, with a median 
barrier. Both concrete and steel design alternates will be considered 
for the cable-stayed portion of this bridge. Traffic will be maintained 
across the existing bridge during construction.
    The Sidney Lanier Bridge Replacement Project is a large-scale 
replacement project designed to remove a serious threat to public 
safety. The principal objective of this project is to replace an 
obsolete liftspan bridge that poses an extreme hazard to navigation and 
to highway motorists. Ships have hit the Sidney Lanier Bridge twice in 
the past twenty-two years, and ten lives have been lost because of 
these collisions.
    The new high-level bridge will provide a minimum of 185 feet 
vertical clearance and 1,038 feet of horizontal clearance for shipping, 
which will allow the development of a major container port in 
Brunswick. The 1,038 feet of horizontal clearance will also allow 
widening the Turtle River to a proposed 400 feet channel width with a 
45 foot channel depth. The new bridge will improve safety for shipping 
and vehicular traffic.
Criteria No. 5--Total Project Cost and Source of Funding
    Estimated design, engineering, rights-of-way and construction costs 
are $103.1 million. Adding contingencies brings the total estimated 
cost to $113.4 million. The total estimated annual life-cycle costs for 
a high-level fixed-span bridge are $20,000 in the early years, 
increasing to $70,000 per year in the final years, with periodic 
maintenance of $335,000 every ten years. For a fifty-year life cycle, 
the estimated annual maintenance cost is $78,500 per year. Funding for 
the annual maintenance expenses of the bridge will be 100 percent state 
funds. Private sector funding is not available for this project.

                       Table 1.--Completion costs

        Phase                                                      Total

Preliminary Engineering and Design......................     $4,976,035 
Right-of-Way............................................        490,700 
Bridge Approaches.......................................     18,884,886 
Construction Engineering................................      5,748,394 
Main Span and Pier Protection...........................     65,475,129 
Final Construction--Including the Removal of the 
    Existing 
    Bridge..............................................      7,517,885 
Contingencies (10 percent)..............................     10,309,303 
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................    113,402,332 
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Less Previous Federal Appropriations (see question No. 
    14).................................................    (38,750,000)
Less Previous State Appropriations......................    (38,750,000)
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Balance...........................................     35,902,332 
Federal Authorization Requested.........................     11,481,525 

Note.--This amount is less than the 50 percent federal share established 
in the 1990 Coast Guard Act. Fifty percent would total $17,951,166.

                                            TABLE 2.--FUNDING PHASES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Phase                             Fiscal year     Total       Federal       State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary engineering.....................................      1992-93     $100,000      $50,000      $50,000
Design......................................................      1994-95    4,876,035    2,438,018    2,438,018
Right-of-way................................................         1995      490,700      245,350      245,350
Bridge approaches...........................................         1995   18,884,886    9,442,443    9,442,443
Construction engineering....................................         1996    5,748,394    2,874,197    2,874,197
Main span and pier protection...............................         1997   65,475,129   32,737,565   32,737,565
Final construction--Including removal of existing bridge....         1998    7,517,885    3,758,942    3,758,942
Contingencies...............................................  ...........   10,309,303    5,154,652    5,154,652
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................  ...........  113,402,332   56,701,166   56,701,166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criteria No. 6--Obligation Schedule for Next Five Years
    All phases of the project are expected to be complete over the next 
five years. Therefore, the full authorization request of $11,481,525 is 
expected to be obligated during this period. The remaining balance of 
$6,469,641 is also expected to be obligated during this period.
Criteria No. 7--Proposed Schedule and Current Status

                        TABLE 3.--PROJECT STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal
                 Phase                     year            Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design and right-of-way...............    1992-93  Complete.
Environmental.........................       1993  Complete.
Bridge approaches.....................       1995  Underway.
Main span and pier protection.........       1997  Underway.
Construction engineering and              1996-98  Underway.
 inspection.
Final construction--Including removal        1998  Underway.
 of existing bridge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary engineering is complete. The Project Concept Report was 
approved in March 1992. Design of the bridge approaches was completed 
in 1994. The project environmental impact statement was approved in 
November 1992 and the Section 404 permit has been approved. 
Construction on the new roadway and approaches is underway. The State 
awarded a contract for construction of the main span in January 1997.
Criteria No. 8--Metropolitan and/or State Transportation Improvement 
        Plan and Funding Schedule
    The Brunswick Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and 
the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) both include the 
main span and bridge approach projects.
Criteria No. 9--Support by State and/or Regional Transportation 
        Officials
    Ten lives have been lost in the past twenty-one years because of 
ship/bridge collisions. Following a 1987 accident, the Georgia 
Department of Transportation began urgently seeking funding to remedy 
this hazardous situation. Receiving funds is critical so that 
construction of the main span and removal of the old bridge can 
continue on schedule. The Brunswick Metropolitan Transportation Plan 
and Georgia's Statewide Plan include the Sidney Lanier Bridge project. 
Georgia Ports Authority expansion plans also include the replacement 
bridge.
Criteria No. 10--National/Regional Significance
    The Coast Guard declared the bridge an unreasonable hazard to 
navigation in 1990. US 17 is designated as a National Highway System 
(NHS) route. US 17 serves as an emergency alternative route for I-95 
and is a major linkage between the Brunswick area and the surrounding 
coastal region. US 17 is significant to regional freight movement 
because it provides a direct linkage to the Georgia Ports Authority's 
Brunswick facilities.
Criteria No. 11 Environmental opposition, obstacles or concerns
    No significant opposition has been encountered, nor is it expected. 
A project environmental impact statement was completed and approved 
November 1992. The project has received strong support from local 
governments. The Brunswick Metropolitan Transportation Improvement 
Program and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) both 
include the main span and bridge approach projects. Construction for 
the roadway and bridge approaches is underway. The State has awarded a 
contract for the construction of the main span.
Criteria No. 12 Economic, energy efficiency, environmental, congestion 
        mitigation and safety benefits
    Economic.--With replacement of the bridge and deepening of the 
channel, it is estimated that sales revenues will increase by $464 
million annually; personal income will increase by $107 million 
annually; tax revenues will increase by $15.8 million annually; and 
jobs will increase by 1,100 by the year 2010.
    The value of increased tonnage into the Port of Brunswick by the 
year 2010 is estimated at $183,000,000 in 1991 dollars.
    Energy Efficiency.--Current conditions on the Sidney Lanier Bridge 
are a 50-mile per hour speed limit with approximately 120 minutes of 
delay over a twenty-four hour period due to the raising and lowering of 
the bridge. Current estimated average annual daily traffic (AADT) is 
12,500 vehicles per day. Approximately 455 vehicles traverse the bridge 
during peak hours. At this rate, the delays caused by the raising and 
lowering of the bridge result in approximately 150 vehicle minutes of 
delay for each raising. With an average of twenty raisings per day, 
there are approximately 3,000 vehicle minutes of delay per twenty-four 
hour period. At the rate of $0.07 per hour of vehicle delay, the cost 
associated with this delay is $27,375 annually.
    Environmental.--Replacement of the current lift span bridge by a 
high level fixed span bridge will result in continuous traffic flow. 
Air quality benefits will be positive but negligible.
    Congestion Mitigation.--Providing a high level fixed span bridge 
will result in continuous flow in vehicular traffic and adequate safe 
clearances for ships navigating the channel.
    Safety Effects.--The value of improved safety improvements is 
estimated at $3.5 million annually by the year 2010.
Criteria No. 13.--Previous Federal funding
    The authorization requested for the Sidney Lanier Bridge continues 
a prior Federal commitment for Federal funding from the General Fund as 
originally provided in the Coast Guard Omnibus Act of 1990 (and 
reaffirmed, by funding in subsequent Appropriations Acts, and Coast 
Guard Authorization Acts) for bridges that are unreasonable hazards to 
navigation. Further, the requested authorization conforms to the 
Federal funding commitment provided for highway bridges as provided 
under Section 1103 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991, and consistent with congressional directives included with 
the passage and subsequent enactment of the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Acts, 1994, 1995, 
1996, 1997, and 1998.
Criteria No. 14--First Federal authorization or increase to previous 
        Federal Authorization
Previous federal appropriations: Federal Share:
    Fiscal year 1992--Truman-Hobbs Act (Coast Guard)....        $900,000
    Fiscal year 1993--Truman-Hobbs Act (Coast Guard)....       5,000,000
    Fiscal year 1994--Truman-Hobbs Act (Coast Guard)....       6,000,000
    Fiscal year 1995--FHWA Demo--transferred to Coast 
      Guard.............................................       1,850,000
    Fiscal year 1996--HR-2002 Alterations of Bridges 
      (Coast Guard).....................................       8,000,000
    Fiscal year 1997--Public Law 104-205................       7,000,000
    Fiscal year 1998--Public Law 105-66.................      10,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      38,750,000
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of Ted Woolley, President, National Association of 
                    State Boating Law Administrators
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Ted Woolley, 
Boating Law Administrator for the State of Utah, and I serve as 
President of the National Association of State Boating Law 
Administrators.
    The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators 
(NASBLA) is a professional association consisting of state officials 
having responsibility for administering and/or enforcing state boating 
laws.
    Our Association is recognized for it's stewardship of 
``Recreational Boating Safety''. We have, over the years, worked 
closely with the U.S. Coast Guard, the States, and others to insure 
that the intent of Congress to promote uniformity, reciprocity, and 
comity among the various States was given high priority. Testimonial of 
this is the many resolutions, model acts etc. that has been generated 
by our Association and adopted by the majority of the States and 
Territories. In doing this we bring to the table at various meetings, 
highly qualified personnel in the field of boating law enforcement, 
education, boating safety, and on the water, search and rescue.
    Our membership takes pride in their accomplishments and the many 
words of praise we have received from the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard 
and the Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board over the years.
    Our reward is saving a life and what a wonderful reward that is!
    My testimony today will focus on the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund 
(Wallop-Breaux) and more specific, the reauthorization/appropriation of 
the Boat Safety Account of this fund.
    The Boating Safety Account of the trust fund is derived solely from 
the tax boaters pay on their motorboat fuel. This user fee, paid by the 
boaters, is returned to the States to help defray their cost for 
services provided to the recreational boater. We think this is indeed 
in keeping with the user fee concept, ``user pays-user benefits'', thus 
not costing the general tax payer one cent and does not add one penny 
to the national debt.
    The Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund has resulted in the States assuming a 
major share of the boating safety and law enforcement responsibilities. 
This move makes sense because the responsibility for boating safety is 
and should continue to be a joint federal/state responsibility. The 
financial base provided by Wallop-Breaux funding allows the states to 
concentrate on establishing an administrative infrastructure, purchase 
equipment and promote the education and enforcement techniques to 
stimulate increased boating safety awareness. This federal/state 
partnership has resulted in fewer boating fatalities even though the 
number of boaters enjoying our nation's waterways continues to 
increase.
    Funds are made available from the Boating Safety Trust Funds to the 
States on a dollar to dollar match and have made a major contribution 
to boating safety. By obtaining these trust funds, the States have been 
able to relieve the Coast Guard boating safety teams on many of the 
nation's waterways (thus allowing the Coast Guard to pursue higher 
priority programs), provide a higher quality of boating safety 
education, produce a system of investigating and reporting boat 
accidents and provide a more rapid response to boaters in distress. It 
is the desire of the States to continue to strengthen our boating 
safety program and partnership to the benefit of the nation's boaters.
    The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (Wallop-Breaux) was due to be 
reauthorized along with the Highway Trust Fund in 1997. However, this 
did not happen and a compromise bill extended the Wallop Breaux Trust 
Fund until Congress comes up with a long term bill (six years) in the 
spring of 1998.
    There is consideration, as you are aware, through authorization 
bills in both the House and the Senate to reauthorize these trust 
funds. While the total amount of the funds remain basically the same, 
the bills provide for a more equitable division of these trust funds 
between the boating safety and sport fisheries programs. These measures 
provide for $70 million for state boating safety programs all of which 
is paid by boaters.
    Specifically, we are asking this Subcommittee for appropriation as 
authorized for the State Boating Safety Program. The Administration 
again this year has recommended $55 million as mandatory appropriation 
to the State Boating Safety Program from the Aquatic Resources Trust 
Fund (Wallop-Breaux).
    Just as our Association is recognized for its stewardship over 
``recreational boating safety'', this Subcommittee over the years, is 
recognized for their untiring efforts in providing appropriation of 
Boating Safety Trust Funds to help defray the cost of services provided 
by the States to the recreational boating public. Be assured the 
efforts of this Subcommittee is well recognized and appreciated 
throughout the boating community.
    Major topics which our Association will focus on through long range 
plans into the 21st. Century are:
  --Identify and evaluate future impacts on boating safety.--Apprise 
        our Association of the status of any legislation, policies or 
        procedures relevant to the issue at hand.
  --Surface Use Conflicts.--Study what is being done and what can be 
        done to help alleviate these problems.
  --Personal Watercraft.--Examine what is working through education, 
        enforcement and regulations and what is the long range outlook 
        for their sales and use.
  --Education Options.--Research what has happened in the states that 
        have adopted ``mandatory education'' for adults, phase in 
        versus more immediate methods, what is the cost effectiveness 
        of these programs and are they making a difference in the 
        target audience. What about other educational initiatives, 
        dealer based education or education using computers or the 
        Internet?
  --Drinking and Boating.--Examine what additional things can be done 
        as far as education or legislation.
  --Personal Flotation Devices.--If wearing a PFD will save 80 percent 
        of the boating accident victims, what would we need to do to 
        encourage wearing it or require it to be worn through state 
        legislation?
  --Funding issues.--Examine the outlook and future for state/federal 
        funding.
  --The role of the U.S. Coast Guard and the States.--Where should we 
        be in the next ten (10) years in boating safety?
    The national trend shows a continuing growth in boating and we 
expect this growth to continue in the coming years. This is 
understandable when you consider that as available land to recreate on 
becomes scarce and with 70 percent of the earth's surface covered by 
water, our waterways are a natural place to seek relief from the 
pressures of a growing population. The beautiful waters that abound our 
states satisfy the insatiable appetite of sport fishing, the 
recreational boating enthusiast and those who desire to leave pressures 
behind to relax and absorb the tranquility of our waters and beaches.
    With commercial traffic (passenger and cargo ships, oil tankers, 
off shore drilling, fishing fleets etc.) add new responsibilities to 
the states in managing this priceless natural resource, ``our 
waterways'', to further the States needs, the Coast Guard is downsizing 
and passing many of their responsibilities to the States. Boating 
safety is and will continue to be a high priority for the States and 
the Coast Guard.
    We take pride in the fact that we make good use of these trust 
funds and that the end product is a major contribution by the states to 
the overall reduction in the boating fatality rate.
    One factor the states would like to change is, recreational boating 
is still on the National Transportation Safety Board's ``most wanted'' 
list. We must continue to focus our attention and coordinated efforts 
to remove recreational boating from this list.
    We feel the State program to date, is a shining example of an ideal 
state/federal partnership, ``user pays-user benefits''. We will 
continue to strive for more innovative use of the funds to better 
educate boaters and further reduce boating fatalities. However, we 
cannot over emphasize that stability in the boating safety trust funds 
is needed for us to be successful. The Federal Boat Safety Trust Funds 
are critical to the success or failure of our States recreational 
boating safety program.
    We appreciate this Subcommittee's continued support and 
respectfully request your consideration for full appropriation as 
authorized from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (Wallop-Breaux ) for 
the States Boating Safety Program for fiscal 1999.
    Thank you,
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of Sgt. Maj. Michael F. Ouellette, USA (Ret.), 
Director of Legislative Affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association 
                    of the United States of America
    Mr. Chairman, the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA 
(NCOA) appreciates the opportunity to present testimony before this 
subcommittee on the fiscal year 1999 U.S. Coast Guard Budget. The 
Association's comments and recommendations represent the views and 
concerns of it's noncommissioned and petty officer membership and those 
of the Apprentice Division (E1-E3) and will address a wide range of 
compensation, personnel, medical care and quality-of-life issues of 
significant importance. Hopefully, this subcommittee will consider 
recommendations from an enlisted view point to be of value and 
assistance during deliberations.
    NCOA is a federally chartered organization representing 160,000 
active-duty, guard and reserve, military retirees, veterans and family 
members of noncommissioned and petty officers serving in every 
component of the Armed Forces of the United States; Army, Marine Corps, 
Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.
    This testimony has been endorsed by the National Military and 
Veterans Alliance (NMVA). The Alliance is comprised of nationally 
prominent military and veterans organization who collectively represent 
over 3 million members of the seven uniformed services--officer, 
enlisted, active-duty, National Guard and Reserve, retired and veterans 
plus their families and survivors. The Alliance organization endorsing 
this testimony are: American Military Retirees Association; American 
Retirees Association; Air Force Sergeants Association; Korean War 
Veterans Association; Military Order of the Purple Heart; National 
Association for the Uniformed Services; Naval Enlisted Reserve 
Association, and the Naval Reserve Association.
                                prelude
    Mr. Chairman, NCOA wishes to extend its appreciation to the members 
of this subcommittee for their efforts on behalf of U.S. Coast Guard 
enlisted men and women. Just as the other services look to another 
appropriation subcommittee for funding assistance, the Coast Guard 
relies on the favorable actions of this subcommittee to provide funding 
parity which allows this relatively small, but important, military 
service to meet its quality-of-life obligations to those who serve. 
There is no question that continued positive funding actions by this 
subcommittee are paramount to the Coast Guard's ability to recruit and 
retain quality enlisted people to meet its wide-ranging mission 
responsibilities. At the very top of enlisted members' list of 
priorities is the ability to meet their financial responsibilities to 
financially support themselves and/or their families.
    NCOA understands the difficult deficit reduction climate in which 
the Congress and the Coast Guard must operate. The efforts of this 
subcommittee have been and will continue to be vitally important to the 
well-being of the enlisted force. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard is at a 
critical personnel juncture. The average ship that goes to sea today 
will be manned at 80 percent of its normal crew compliment. Recruiting 
is down substantially. In an effort to meet recruiting goals, the 
service has had to implement two and three year contracts, offer 
bonuses up to $12,000 and G.I. Bill kickers of up to $30,000. Still the 
average recruiter must interview more than 100 potential candidates to 
find one acceptable recruit and the Coast Guard has had to expand the 
recruiting force substantially to meet its recruiting needs.
    The major point the Association wishes to make to this subcommittee 
is that the decision to maintain a credible Coast Guard automatically 
carries with it a responsibility to take care of the men and women who 
comprise that force regardless. This subcommittee has done that in the 
past. Yet much more must be done to avert a manpower crisis.
    NCOA wishes to offer a number of pay, personnel, medical care and 
quality-of-life improvement recommendations intended to address a 
number of areas which can significantly improve the overall well-being 
of Coast Guard members, retirees, their families and survivors. As a 
matter of parity, the same recommendations will be made to those 
committees and subcommittees maintaining responsibility for the other 
services.
                       annual military pay raise
    NCOA appreciates the support of this subcommittee to pass 
legislation in 1997 that awarded Coast Guard members a 2.8 percent 
cost-of-living pay raise effective January 1, 1998. However, it must be 
noted the increase was one-half percent below inflation as measured by 
the Employment Cost Index (ECI) which was set at 3.3 percent. NCOA and 
most enlisted members of the armed forces are well aware that military 
pay raises have been capped below private sector pay growth or full 
inflation in 12 or the last 16 years. The result is that military pay, 
even with the January 1998 increase, lags a cumulative 13.5 percent 
behind that enjoyed by the average American worker performing similar 
work. With the knowledge of these facts and after sustaining weeks and 
months of family separation and the hardships associated with the 
missions of the Coast Guard, complicated by increasingly longer 
workdays due to force reductions and operation tempo, enlisted men and 
women feel they are being ``short-changed'' by those in control of 
their destinies.
    In 1997, the House of Representatives recognized the seriousness of 
this pay situation by including language in their version of the fiscal 
year 1998 Defense Authorization Bill that directed future military pay 
raises to be at the full ECI level. Unfortunately, this provision was 
dropped in conference and the status quo prevailed. Although NCOA 
supports full ECI pay raises and total elimination of the differential 
with civilian sector pay, the Association does not expect the Congress 
to approve a 13.5 percent pay raise in 1999 to correct the situation. 
NCOA does recommend that Congress adopt a long-term military pay raise 
plan that would resolve the problem over time. Future military pay 
raises paid annually at full ECI levels plus an additional percentage 
amount would put military members (including the Coast Guard) on equal 
financial ground with their civilian counterparts in future years, 
while at the same time, gradually eliminating the current estimated pay 
differential. NCOA recommends a long term plan that would increase pay 
by the ECI plus 2 percent in 1999, ECI plus 3 percent in 2000, ECI plus 
4 percent in 2001 and ECI plus 5 percent in 2002.
                      compensation parity with dod
    The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request reflects funding 
increases which correspond to the improvements enacted into law in 
1998. Housing Allowance and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) 
reform, Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay, Family Separation Allowance (FSA) 
are all items Congress approved last year and is now being asked to 
fund for fiscal year 1999. NCOA believes it to be extremely important 
that this subcommittee react favorably to the Coast Guard's request. 
Failure to do so could leave Coast Guard members and their families 
without the same benefits enjoyed by members of the other military 
services.
           the uniformed services thrift savings plan (ustsp)
    This year NCOA expects a recommendation to come before Congress 
that would establish a saving plan for members of the uniformed 
services. This proposal would give those eligible to participate an 
opportunity to contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay into a 
program referred to as the Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan with 
the deduction made from their pay by the servicing Defense Finance and 
Accounting Services (DFAS). Under normal conditions, such a proposal 
would appear to have considerable merit; however, NCOA is very 
concerned that such a proposal sends the wrong message or paints an 
inaccurate picture of the current financial capabilities of enlisted 
members of the Coast Guard and other services. NCOA believes it to be 
highly unusual that at a time when annual pay raises are being capped 
below inflation; When a pay gap of 13.5 percent is estimated to exist 
between military and civilian sector pay; When commissaries are 
redeeming food stamps in the millions of dollars, the Defense 
Department would offer a proposal that strongly suggests that military 
people, particularly enlisted people, can afford to save money.
    Since the original proposal made only those who entered military 
service on or after August 1, 1986, eligible to participate, NCOA 
believes the main intent was to provide a program to supplement the 
retirement system for military members who began service on August 1, 
1986. The financial impact of that system is itemized on Enclosures 1 
and 2. There can be no doubt the 1986 retirement system will impose a 
wide range of financial penalties on those serving under it. In the 
interests of military services' ability to recruit and retain military 
people until retirement, NCOA recommends the retirement system be 
improved from its current version rather than initiate a new program 
when similar civilian savings and tax deferred programs already exist 
for those who can afford to take advantage of them.
                   coast guard housing and facilities
    Last year in testimony to this subcommittee, NCOA supported a 
Defense Department proposal to change the manner in which Basic 
Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) and Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) were 
paid. The one allowance system went into effect on January 1, 1998, and 
hopefully will provide Coast Guard families with a sufficient amount of 
money to cover the cost of adequate housing wherever assigned.
    Despite improvements in the housing allowance, there continues to 
be a need for this committee to provide the Coast Guard with the 
funding necessary to construct or make necessary improvements to 
government owned family housing and single member living facilities. In 
addition, NCOA believes that work area construction and improvements 
are as much quality-of-life improvements as are those related to 
housing. NCOA strongly recommends this subcommittee consider the need 
to provide funding that not only provides Coast Guard people with 
suitable living quarters but also considers health, welfare and safety 
in the workplace as an important part of its quality-of-life funding 
responsibilities.
                       tuition assistance parity
    Last year Congress instructed DOD to standardize the Tuition 
Assistance Program for all services. The Coast Guard has responded to 
guidance and has attempted to change its program to mirror the other 
services. However, a shortage of funding resulted in the Coast Guard's 
fielding of an annual tuition assistance benefit that was far short of 
what is authorized by the other service. The DOD services provide a 
maximum annual tuition assistance benefit of $3,500, while the Coast 
Guard could only fund an annual benefit of $1,000 for all eligible 
active-duty and civilian employees. This differential is difficult for 
Coast Guard members to understand especially when education opportunity 
while in service is used as a recruiting incentive. This is clearly an 
inequity that must be corrected by this subcommittee. NCOA recommends 
this subcommittee include approve the Coast Guard's request for $4 
million to provide equity throughout the services and level the 
education opportunity ``playing field'' for all eligible members of the 
Coast Guard community.
                       coast guard retiree issues
    NCOA has a number of retired force issues and concerns it wants to 
bring to the attention of this subcommittee. Some of the issues are 
directly related to Coast Guard funding requirements, however, others 
will be discussed as parity issues that will surface in other 
legislation but would be of benefit to the retired Coast Guard 
community.
  --Retired Pay Cost-Of-Living Adjustment (COLA).--NCOA appreciates the 
        efforts of this subcommittee to provide a 2.1 percent COLA to 
        Coast Guard retirees effective January 1, 1998. Nonetheless, 
        NCOA remains extremely concerned that last year's congressional 
        activity included suggestions by some that the Consumer Price 
        Index (CPI) overrates inflation. The Association believes this 
        debate will continue into 1998. NCOA urges this subcommittee to 
        continue to resist retirement or COLA proposals that would 
        reduce the value or purchasing power of Coast Guard retired 
        pay.
  --Concurrent Receipt.--Despite the fact that cost is a major factor 
        in changing the current offset between VA disability 
        compensation and military retired pay, NCOA remains committed 
        to correcting this equity. Retired pay and VA compensation are 
        made for two distinctively different reasons. Yet, should a 
        military retiree be adjudicated to be disabled by the VA, there 
        continues to be a dollar for dollar offset in the payment of 
        benefits. NCOA urges this subcommittee to work toward reducing 
        or eliminating the current VA disability offset to military 
        retired pay at least for the 100 percent or most severely 
        disabled.
                         military medical care
    Mr. Chairman, availability and access to military health care or 
alternative options that are needed to protect the medical care needs 
of military beneficiaries. Surveys of Coast Guard people and their 
families consistently show that medical care along with adequate pay, 
inflation protected retired pay and commissary availability are the top 
concerns of the Coast Guard community. In fact, with base and hospital 
closures and reductions in medical personnel, the increasing lack of 
no-cost health care is a major concern to active and retired personnel 
alike. Enlisted people, both active and retired, suffer the greatest 
impact because of their lower pay levels which cause them to place a 
greater value on the benefit.
    Currently more than 58 hospitals have been closed as part of the 
Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) or other actions. 
Services have been cut back at many of the hospitals remaining open and 
many of them have been and continue to be downgraded to clinic size. 
Hundreds of thousands of retirees (including Coast Guard) and their 
family members who received care in MTF's are now finding no care 
available. Retirees are being denied prescription drugs by MTF 
pharmacies in increasing numbers. They are told the prescribed drugs 
cost too much and are not stocked or are restricted for issue to active 
duty beneficiaries only.
    The TRICARE Program has been in development or implementation for 
nearly a decade, yet the TRICARE-Prime still does not cover certain 
parts of the United States. For example, in California where the 
military managed care system has been in place the longest, there are 
still areas without TRICARE-Prime networks. However, despite the lack 
of established networks, the TRICARE-Standard/CHAMPUS option should be 
available. Unfortunately, the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Care (CMAC) is 
so low many physicians will not accept it. The current system is 
broken, and must be fixed.
    NCOA fully supports keeping a strong, effective direct care system 
for the delivery of health care and in the best interests of medical 
readiness. The Association also supports making full use of the 
military treatment facilities and TRICARE networks as primary 
providers. However those retirees (Medicare-eligible) who are either 
``locked-out'' of TRICARE-Prime or not guaranteed access to these 
primary sources of care should be offered a number of alternatives or 
options. In this regard, NCOA supports:
  --Medicare Subvention.--NCOA is pleased that Congress passed 
        legislation last year providing authority to provide a Medicare 
        Subvention demonstration project at six sites across the United 
        States. Although this action was a major step forward, the 
        Association is greatly concerned by loss of military medical 
        care access for the many Medicare eligible military retirees 
        residing outside the confines of the demonstration test sites. 
        Therefore, NCOA strongly supports the immediate implementation 
        of the Medicare Subvention concept across the United States in 
        order to provide immediate relief and to minimize the great 
        injustice being done to all Medicare eligible military retirees 
        who have lost earned health care benefits.
  --FEHBP as an Option.--NCOA supports offering the Federal Employees 
        Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) as an option to Medicare 
        eligible military retirees, their families and survivors. 
        Additionally, the Association also supports offering this 
        option to TRICARE-Standard eligible beneficiaries residing 
        outside of TRICARE-Prime catchment areas. Although not an issue 
        that can be acted upon by this subcommittee, in the best 
        interests of Coast Guard retirees, NCOA urges the subcommittee 
        members to support any legislative effort to direct DOD to 
        restore TRICARE-Standard or CHAMPUS as originally intended by 
        Congress or authorize FEHBP as an option for all military 
        retirees and their families.
  --Medicare Part B Enrollment Penalty Waiver.--NCOA urges the 
        subcommittee members to support the enactment of any 
        legislation to waive the 10 percent per year Part B Medicare 
        late enrollment penalty for military retirees whose access to 
        the military health care system has been curtailed because of 
        base closures or implementation of TRICARE-Prime.
  --Mail-Order Pharmacy Program Expansion.--Another legislative item 
        that would be most beneficial to all military retirees would be 
        the expansion of this program beyond just those affected by 
        BRAC actions. NCOA urges the subcommittee members to support 
        legislation to expand the DOD mail-order pharmacy program to 
        include all military retiree, regardless of age, status or 
        location. The availability of this program would be a great 
        benefit to Medicare eligible military retirees even if Medicare 
        Subvention or FEHBP legislation were not passed.
                         survivor benefit plan
    Because of the efforts of Congress last year, military retirees who 
enroll in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) can now withdraw from the 
program during the first year following the two-year anniversary date 
of their retirement. NCOA continues to recommend a legislative change 
to SBP which would permit 30-year paid-up coverage.
                               conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, perhaps the single most valuable effort this 
subcommittee could make to the well-being of the Coast Guard enlisted 
community and the armed forces in general is to send a signal that 
Congress will provide some stability in pay and benefits. Last year, 
the House of Representatives attempted to make full ECI pay raises 
mandatory. Although that particular effort failed, there were numerous 
improvements. For instance, Congress passed legislation that reduced 
out-of-pocket medical costs for military families assigned to isolated 
areas. They made improvements in Hazardous Duty Pay and Family 
Separation Allowance (FSA) and even gave military members a new 
Hardship Deployment Pay. A Retiree Dental Plan, although non-
subsidized, became a reality. Still there remains uncertainty in the 
minds of military people. Even with the legislative gains achieved by 
military people, they still seem only to remember the attempted threats 
to their benefits.
    The insecurity caused by this constant churning of threats to 
benefits creates an environment of stress that takes a real toll on 
national security. Coast Guard members simply must be given 
opportunities to respect and participate in change instead of living in 
constant dread and fear of loss.
    NCOA appreciates the opportunity to present a number of enlisted 
views in testimony before this subcommittee. The Association looks 
forward to addressing further details regarding the issues discussed 
and any other issues with you and the subcommittee staff.
    Thank You.
               disclosure of federal grants or contracts
    The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA (NCOA) does 
not currently receive, nor has the Association ever received, any 
federal money for grants or contracts. All of the Association's 
activities and services are accomplished completely free of any federal 
funding.
                          Biographical Sketch
                          michael f. ouellette
    Mr. Michael F. Ouellette currently serves as Director of 
Legislative Affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association of the 
United States of America (NCOA). He is a registered Congressional 
Lobbyist whose responsibilities include a wide range of military 
personnel and survivor benefits to veterans' legislative issues. He 
formerly served as Co-Chairman of The Military Coalition from January 
1, 1993 until February 22, 1996. He currently serves as the NCOA 
representative to the National Military and Veterans Alliance.
    A retired Sergeant Major, Mr. Ouellette joined the NCOA National 
Capital Office in 1991 following twenty-six years of military service 
with the United States Army. His final assignment was as the Sergeant 
Major to the Adjutant General of the Army, U.S. Total Army Personnel 
Command (PERSCOM), Alexandria, Virginia, and covered the period 1988 
through 1991.
    Ouellette's period of service included numerous tours of duty 
within the United States and overseas tours in the Republic of Vietnam, 
Japan and Germany. His military decorations included the Legion of 
Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), the 
Army Commendation Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), and the Army 
Achievement Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters). He is a graduate of the 
U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy (Class # 25) and holds an Associates 
Degree in Applied Science and General Management from El Paso Community 
College, El Paso, Texas.
    He is a former President of the Potomac Chapter, AG Corps 
Regimental Association and the PERSCOM Sergeants Major Association. He 
currently maintains membership status in the NCOA Museum Association, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Knights of Columbus, the Exchange Club, 
American Legion, the 4th Infantry Division Association, and AUSA.
                 Enclosure 1.--Three Retirement Systems
    Prior to Sept. 8, 1990:
  --Final base pay--full COLA for life
    O/A Sept. 8, 1980:
  --``High-3'' year average for base pay
  --Full COLA for life
    O/A Aug. 1, 1986:
  --``High-3'' year average
  --Minus 1 percent for years less than 30
  --Minus 1 percent COLA until age 62
  --Age 62 one-time catch-up
  --CPI minus 1 percent COLA thereafter
                                 ______
                                 

                       ENCLOSURE 2.--VALUE DIFFERENCE IN MILITARY RETIRED PAY SYSTEMS \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Entered service prior   Entered service on or   Entered service on or
                                             to Sept. 8, 1980      after Sept. 1, 1980,     after Aug. 1, 1986
                                         ------------------------   but before Aug. 1,   -----------------------
                   Age                                                     1986
                                            Monthly     Annual   ------------------------   Monthly     Annual
                                                                    Monthly     Annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42......................................     $600.00   $7,200.00     $564.60   $6,775.20     $508.00   $6,096.00
43......................................      612.00    7,344.00      575.89    6,910.70      513.08    6,156.96
44......................................      624.24    7,490.88      587.41    7,048.92      518.21    6,218.53
45......................................      636.72    7,640.70      599.16    7,189.90      523.39    6,280.71
46......................................      649.46    7,793.51      611.14    7,333.69      528.63    6,343.52
47......................................      662.45    7,949.38      623.36    7,480.37      533.91    6,406.96
48......................................      675.70    8,108.37      635.83    7,629.98      539.25    6,471.03
49......................................      689.21    8,270.54      648.55    7,782.58      544.64    6,535.74
50......................................      703.00    8,435.95      661.52    7,938.23      550.09    6,601.09
51......................................      717.06    8,604.67      674.75    8,096.99      555.59    6,667.11
52......................................      731.40    8,776.76      688.24    8,258.93      561.15    6,733.78
53......................................      746.02    8,952.30      702.01    8,424.11      566.76    6,801.11
54......................................      760.95    9,131.34      716.05    8,592.59      572.43    6,869.13
55......................................      776.16    9,313.97      730.37    8,764.44      578.15    6,937.82
56......................................      791.69    9,500.25      744.98    8,939.73      583.93    7,007.19
57......................................      807.52    9,690.25      759.88    9,118.53      589.77    7,077.27
58......................................      823.67    9,884.06      775.07    9,300.90      595.67    7,148.04
59......................................      840.14   10,081.74      790.58    9,486.92      601.63    7,219.52
60......................................      856.95   10,283.37      806.39    9,676.65      607.64    7,291.72
61......................................      874.09   10,489.04      822.52    9,870.19      613.72    7,364.63
62......................................      891.57   10,698.82      838.97   10,067.59  ..........  ..........
One time catch up.......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      736.46    8,837.56
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total retired pay at age 62.......  ..........  185,639.88  ..........  174,687.13  ..........  143,065.41
                                         =======================================================================
System value (percent)..................  ..........         100  ..........          94  ..........          77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Value per 1,000 of regular pay after 24 years of service at age 42; chart assumes constant 2 percent annual
  CPI adjustment.

                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Capt. Fred R. Becker, Jr., JAGC, USN (Ret.), 
  Director, Naval Affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United 
                                 States
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: It is my pleasure to 
address this committee concerning the fiscal year 1999 budget request 
for the United States Coast Guard.
    First and foremost, the Reserve Officers Association would like to 
express its profound gratitude to the Congress, and this committee, for 
their strong and vigorous support of the Coast Guard Reserve during the 
fiscal year 1998 authorization and appropriation's process. ROA's 
testimony during the first session of the 105th Congress addressed a 
number of concerns regarding the Coast Guard Reserve, including 
funding, recruiting, and the provision of much need port security 
equipment. In recognition of the vital support provided to the nation 
by today's Coast Guard Reserve, the Congress and this committee 
responded. Specific examples included:
  --Report language in the Senate version of the DOD Authorization 
        bill, expressing concern that the Coast Guard Reserve's end-
        strength had fallen significantly below its authorized and 
        appropriated level for fiscal year 1997 and requiring a report 
        on Coast Guard Reserve recruiting;
  --Authorizing, in the fiscal year 1998 DOD authorization bill, a new 
        affiliation bonus for enlisted members leaving active duty;
  --Increasing the level of funding, in the fiscal year 1998 
        appropriations bill, for Reserve training, from the $65 million 
        requested by the administration, to $67 million;
  --Limiting, in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, the amount 
        of Reserve training funds that can be transferred to operating 
        expenses of the Coast Guard, to $20 million;
  --Adding, in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, $1 million for 
        Coast Guard Reserve recruiting; and,
  --Including, in the fiscal year 1998 DOD Appropriations bill, $13.5 
        million for the refurbishment of the 3 existing port security 
        units and the establishment of 3 new port security units.
    On behalf of Coast Guard Reservists serving around the globe we 
thank you for this support!
    This year the Reserve Officers Association again strongly advocates 
adequate resource allocations for the United States Coast Guard and, 
most especially, the Coast Guard Reserve. In this regard, we recognize 
that providing the much needed resources to the Coast Guard, and the 
Coast Guard Reserve, continues to be a distinct challenge. In addition 
to ensuring adequate Reserve funding, congressional action has been 
continually required to provide the unique combination of Department of 
Transportation and Department of Defense funding required to support 
the Coast Guard's much needed operations.
                       coast guard budget request
    The Coast Guard continues to show great professionalism and 
flexibility in doing more with less. The Commandant, Admiral Kramek, 
has streamlined the Coast Guard and reduced resource requirements while 
maintaining the capabilities upon which our nation depends. 
Concomitantly, the responsibilities and work of the Coast Guard have 
not been reduced, in fact responsibilities and work have increased. 
Given the downsizing that has occurred and the continued increasing 
demands on the force, the Coast Guard must not be continually stretched 
by under-funding.
    Today's Coast Guard is an extremely cost-effective, flexible, and 
responsive organization that makes a daily difference in the quality of 
life for all Americans by saving lives, enforcing the Nation's laws, 
guarding our Nation's maritime borders, and protecting environment and 
natural resources, as well as providing a readily available 
augmentation force to the Department of Defense in times of national 
emergency. Each and every day, the Coast Guard, and Coast Guard 
Reserve, provide an impressive return on investment to the American 
People. In fiscal year 1997 alone, the Coast Guard:
  --Saved more than 5,000 lives, and assisted another 50,000 people in 
        distress;
  --Saved more than $2 billion and protected more than $3 billion in 
        property;
  --Executed the proof of concept counter-drug OPERATION FRONTIER 
        SHIELD around Puerto Rico and subsequently prevented a record 
        amount of more than 103,000 pounds of cocaine and 102,000 
        pounds of marijuana products from reaching our shores;
  --Responded to more than 13,000 reports of water pollution and 
        supervised more than 600 federally funded oil and chemical 
        spill cleanups;
  --Intercepted more than 2,100 illegal migrants before they reached 
        U.S. shores;
  --Maintained more than 50,000 aids to navigation that helped ensure 
        the safe navigation of ships that carry 95 percent of the 
        nation's imports and exports;
  --Performed more than 40,000 inspections on merchant ships and 
        licensed 36,000 merchant mariners;
  --Inspected more than 3,000 fishing vessels at-sea to verify 
        compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and,
  --Conducted more than 125,000 courtesy marine examinations of 
        recreational vessels.
    Even more impressive, this was all accomplished while the Coast 
Guard successfully completed the largest streamlining in its history. 
That streamlining responded directly to the National Performance Review 
and eliminated 4,000 positions, bringing the Coast Guard to its 
smallest work force since 1965. The taxpayers will save nearly $400 
million per year and the services provided to America will actually 
improve. The fiscal year 1999 request builds on that success, by 
proposing programmatic reductions of more than $70 million per year, 
and eliminating more than 500 additional positions.
    Simply stated, this can't go on forever, however attractive that 
prospect may be to budget builders. Because the post-streamlined Coast 
Guard is at its most efficient organizational state, funding less than 
that required--to absorb increases from pay raises and other required 
cost of living adjustments--will result in reduced services to the 
public. To avoid any adverse impact on service to the public, any 
future cost reductions must be achieved through efficiency from 
investments in new, more efficient capital equipment and technology and 
increased use of the Reserves.
    The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 budget request would allow the 
Coast Guard to barely maintain current services in 12 different mission 
areas. First and foremost, it is important to note that the fiscal year 
1999 operating fund request of $2,772 million is apparently underfunded 
by $69 million. In this respect, pay raises, cost of living increases 
and other statutorily mandated increases, as well as the additional $3 
million necessitated by one new initiative (the Caribbean support 
ship), require a $128 million increase above the level appropriated in 
fiscal year 1998, $2,715 million. It is, therefore, apparent that the 
Coast Guard is expected to make up the shortfall by further management 
efficiencies and facility closures during fiscal year 1999 that are in 
all likelihood simply unachievable.
    Of further concern is the fact that the capital account would, 
under the Administration's proposal, derive $35 million, or almost 8 
percent of its funding, from proposed commercial navigation user fees 
that will almost certainly not be enacted and must, therefore, be made 
up through additional appropriations not included in the 
administration's budget. Looking beyond fiscal year 1999, it must also 
be noted that the Acquisitions, Construction and Improvements (AC&I) 
account barely maintains current services. Simply stated, this account, 
which provides for the vital acquisition, construction and improvement 
of vessels, aircraft, information management resources, shore 
facilities and aids to navigation required to execute the Coast Guard's 
mission and achieve its performance goals, cannot continue to be 
minimally funded. The Coast Guard will not be able to function 
efficiently in the future without the modern equipment provided through 
the adequate funding of this account. Future cost reductions in the 
Coast Guard will have to depend on efficiencies derived from 
investments in new, more efficient capital equipment and technology.
    The Coast Guard currently operates ships with high personnel and 
maintenance costs. Some ships have been in service for more than 50 
years. Simply stated, the continued protection of the public, at a 
lower cost, requires further investment in the AC&I account--to enable 
the Coast Guard to design more capable and less labor-intensive ships 
and aircraft. Without the necessary investment in the AC&I account, 
pressure will continue to build on the operational account, as 
anticipated lower personnel and maintenance costs, that would be 
achieved through investment, become unachievable.
    Finally, investment in the AC&I account provides the requisite 
funding for the Coast Guard's ``Deepwater'' program, the Coast Guard's 
plan to modernize its major cutters, aircraft, and command, control, 
communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (C\4\I) systems. The Deepwater program is an absolute 
requirement--to sustain the Coast Guard's capability for providing 
services critical to America's public safety, environmental protection, 
and national security for the next 30 years--through the replacement of 
assets that are at, or fast approaching, the end of their service 
lives. It should also be recognized that the Coast Guard's medium and 
high endurance cutters, acquired through the Deepwater program, will be 
readily available to support critical Department of Defense operations 
such as maritime surveillance and interception, convoy escort, search 
and rescue, and enforcement of maritime sanctions, as was the case 
during Operation Desert Storm. Such options allow Navy ``high end'' 
ships to be more effectively employed in higher threat/combat 
operations. In addition, as the Navy surface combatant fleet grows 
smaller, the future cutter provides an extremely cost-effective ``dual 
capability,'' by providing not only the ability for the Coast Guard to 
perform its peacetime mission, but the vital operational capabilities 
vitally needed by the Navy and the Department of Defense in the 21st 
Century, as recently recognized by Admiral Jay L. Johnson, USN, Chief 
of Naval Operations.
                       selected reserve strength
    The fiscal year 1999 authorization request is to maintain the Coast 
Guard Selected Reserve end-strength at the 8,000 level. While 
recognizing that the Coast Guard Reserve's end-strength remains below 
7,600 for the second consecutive year, we have serious concerns 
regarding the administration's proposal for an appropriated end-
strength of only 7,600. We also have concerns regarding an authorized 
end-strength of 8,000, in view of the fact that the Commandant has 
conducted an in-depth study that clearly indicates and justifies a 
requirement for in excess of 12,000 Coast Guard Reservists.
    In recent years, the Congress, the administration, and Coast Guard 
leadership have ever increasingly recognized the unique capabilities of 
the Coast Guard Reserve. It is now well-recognized that the Coast Guard 
Reserve has clearly become a value-added resource for peacetime day-to-
day operations, as well as a highly cost-effective source of needed, 
trained personnel to meet military contingency and other surge 
requirements. The funding of 3 additional port security units, that 
require approximately 100 additional Reservist each in fiscal year 
1998, is but one example.
    In view of the foregoing, we remain particularly concerned that the 
administration and the Coast Guard have allowed the Coast Guard 
Reserve's end-strength to fall below the authorized and appropriated 
level for fiscal year 1997 and have not succeeded in recruiting 
Reservists to end-strength in fiscal year 1998. While recognizing that 
the Coast Guard has made some effort to correct the end-strength 
shortfall, we are very concerned that these efforts have not resulted 
in rectifying the recruiting shortfall. We are further very concerned 
over the impact that the failure to recruit may have on future 
authorized and appropriated end-strength in the Coast Guard Reserve. It 
must be noted that all the other armed services are meeting their 
recruiting goals for Reservists (the Army within the established range 
of plus, or minus, 2 percent). The immediate problem, therefore, 
appears unique to the Coast Guard Reserve.
    As noted in last year's testimony, Team Coast Guard has, with 
limited exceptions, resulted in the complete assimilation of Coast 
Guard Reservists into the active duty force. Prior to Team Coast Guard, 
Reserve unit commanding officers had specific responsibilities for 
recruiting. These recruiting responsibilities have not been transferred 
to active duty commanding officers, who would in many cases, because of 
geographics, would be better able to recruit Reservists than Coast 
Guard recruiters. In addition, Reservists have not been assigned to 
assist in recruiting and recruiting responsibilities have not been 
assigned to Reservists. Finally, Reserve recruiting quotas have not yet 
been assigned to Coast Guard recruiters, although quotas do exist for 
recruiting active duty personnel. This is despite the fact the 
recruiting a Reservist is recognized within the Coast Guard itself as 
being substantially more difficult than recruiting a new active duty 
entrant--the primary reason being that Reservists must be recruited to 
a targeted billet at a specific location that is, in many instances, 
not located near the recruiting office. (The Coast Guard has eased, but 
not lifted, this geographic requirement over the past year.) In sharp 
contrast, those recruited for active duty assignments are simply 
ordered to boot camp. Further action may, therefore, be required to 
ensure that the Coast Guard is able to recruit the requisite number of 
personnel.
    All of this having been said, it must be noted that the Coast Guard 
has made some headway in intensifying its Reserve recruiting over the 
past year. Such efforts have included easing, but not lifting, the 
geographical constraints (as previously noted), implementation of a new 
tuition assistance program that includes Reservists, and the 
establishment of a monthly Reserve recruiting newsletter. Despite these 
efforts, while the Coast Guard exceeded one-hundred percent of the 
goals for the active-duty force in fiscal year 1996 and almost 95 
percent in fiscal year 1997, it recruited only 65 percent of those 
needed for the Reserve force in fiscal year 1996, only 67 percent of 
those needed for the Reserve force in fiscal year 1997, and through 
January 31, 1998, only 35 percent of monthly Reserve requirements. 
Finally, it should be noted that the Coast Guard has only recently 
authorized (February 6, 1998) the new selected Reserve affiliation 
bonus enacted as a part the fiscal year 1998 National Defense 
Authorization Act, signed into law on November 28, 1997.
                            reserve funding
    The administration has requested $67 million for the Reserve 
Training (RT) appropriation for fiscal year 1998, with $25 million in 
reimbursement to operating expenses. Given the present procedures for 
reimbursement for operating expenses and direct payments by the Coast 
Guard Reserve, this is the minimum needed to fund a full training 
program for 7,600 personnel. Even at this minimal funding level, Coast 
Guard Reservists would continue to receive only 12 days of annual 
training (AT) each year (all the other armed services, except for the 
Navy, are entitled to 14 days' AT by departmental regulation). In 
addition, it should be noted that the $67 million funding level is 
based on 90 percent funding of on-board strength, as opposed to 
previously established procedures of budgeting for 90 percent of 
authorized strength.
    Additional funding required to support the full 8,000 level 
authorized would appear to be $72M. It should, however, be noted that 
the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, in appropriating $67 million 
for the Coast Guard Reserve, limits the amount of Reserve training 
funds that may be transferred to operating expenses to $20M. The House 
Appropriations Committee report notes that this limitation is included, 
``Given the relatively small amount of the reserve training 
appropriations and the declining size of the Selected Reserve * * * to 
ensure the Reserves are not assessed excessive charge-backs to the 
Coast Guard operating budget.'' The House report goes on to state that: 
``The Committee believes the proposed level of reimbursement ($22.6 
million for fiscal year 1998) may be too high, especially given the 
substantial amount of reserve augmentation workhours provided by the 
reserves in direct support of Coast Guard missions--2.7 percent of all 
the Coast Guard staff years.'' Accordingly, the report states, ``The 
Coast Guard's planned assessment to reimburse their operating budget 
for reserve training does not adequately consider this level of cross-
support * * *.''
    ROA thanks the Congress for its recognition of the support provided 
by the Coast Guard Reserve and would ask that this limitation be not 
only continued, but meticulously monitored to ensure the observation of 
congressional intent. In this regard, it may be that with limited 
additional funding, limited reimbursement and careful monitoring of 
reimbursement, and direct funding from the Reserve account--from a 
current, as well as historical basis--that the Coast Guard Reserve 
would have sufficient funds to attain the 8,000 level. This would also 
have a positive, morale-building effect on Reservists by not 
jeopardizing Reserve strength.
                            team coast guard
    The Coast Guard has embraced the reality that its Reserve is a 
value-added resource. This fact has been demonstrated by the adoption 
of Team Coast Guard, which as previously discussed, includes the full 
integration of Coast Guard Reservists into their parent Active force 
commands. This expansion and modification of the historic method of 
augmentation training directly benefits the Coast Guard, as has been 
directly noted by the House appropriations committee. As a result of 
Team Coast Guard Reservists now perform day-to-day operations as an 
integral part of the active duty force. In addition, integration has 
reduced administrative overhead by making the parent command 
responsible for Reserve personnel in the same manner as the assigned 
active-duty personnel.
    We continue to support the goals and objectives of this new method 
of operations. The Coast Guard Reserve has become the ``bench-
strength'' of the active duty force. In this regard, a strength of 
8,000 Coast Guard Reservists equates to only 506 full-time equivalent 
positions. Simply stated, the Reserve leverages the entire organization 
and stands ready to go in response to both domestic and national 
emergencies. As a result, the Coast Guard is readily able to surge its 
forces to meet domestic emergencies in an extremely cost effective 
manner, as well as to respond to national emergencies, to include vital 
harbor security for the Department of Defense with the Coast Guard 
Reserve Port Security Units.
    This committee's support of the Coast Guard has been critical to 
maintaining its military capability. Your continued support is vital. 
Thank you for this opportunity to present the position of the Reserve 
Officers Association to this committee. I would be pleased to respond 
to any questions you may have at this time.
                          Biographical Sketch
                          fred r. becker, jr.
    Fred Becker is a native of Louisville, Kentucky and a retired 
Captain, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy. He graduated from 
the U.S. Naval Academy in 1971. His first assignment after 
commissioning was as Gunnery Officer on board USS Stickell (DD-888), 
followed by a tour on USS Biddle (DLG-34) as Missile Officer. Under his 
leadership Biddle's Missile Battery was awarded the Atlantic Fleet 
``E'' for excellence in readiness and missile accuracy.
    He was then assigned as Aide-de-Camp to Rear Admiral Jeremiah A. 
Denton, Jr., at the Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Virginia. 
While at the Staff College, he was selected as one of an elite group of 
officers to attend law school under the auspice of the Navy's Law 
Education Program. He subsequently attended the Marshall-Wythe School 
of Law, College of William and Mary, graduating with a J.D. Degree 
(Order of the Coif) in 1979.
    Fred Becker then attended the Naval Justice School where he was the 
recipient of the American Bar Association Award of Professional Merit, 
graduating first in his class. His first assignment as a Judge Advocate 
was to the Naval Legal Service Office, Norfolk, Virginia where he 
served as a prosecution attorney, and later as the senior prosecution 
attorney. As the senior prosecution attorney, he was responsible for 
the supervision of seven other attorneys, who prosecuted in excess of 
1,000 cases annually at the Navy's largest Legal Service Office.
    Subsequently, Fred Becker was assigned as the Executive Officer, 
Naval Legal Service Officer, Guam. Following this tour of duty, he was 
assigned to the Office of the Judge Advocate General where he was 
responsible for recruiting and hiring new attorneys for the Navy Judge 
Advocate General's Corps. He then commenced a tour at the Navy Office 
of Legislative Affairs where he served as a liaison officer with the 
Congress in the area of federal procurement policy and legislation. His 
ensuing assignment was as the Military Advisor to Mr. L. Wayne Arny, 
III, Associate Director, National Security and International Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. 
Following this assignment, he was assigned as the Deputy Fleet Judge 
Advocate, Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet. He was then assigned 
as the Fleet Judge Advocate, Commander, THIRD Fleet.
    Fred Becker's next assignment was as the Legal Counsel to the Chief 
of Naval Personnel. Following the tour of duty as Legal Counsel to the 
Chief of Naval Personnel, Fred Becker was assigned as the Director, 
Legislation, U.S. Navy Office of Legislative Affairs. In this position 
he supervised a staff eleven civilian and military personnel conducting 
Congressional legislative affairs on such diverse issues as military 
personnel and compensation, health care, Naval Reserve programs, 
government contracting, military construction, moral, welfare and 
recreation programs and environmental compliance.
    Fred Becker qualified as a Surface Warfare Office in 1974. He is a 
member of the Virginia Bar. He has been awarded the Legion of Merit 
(second award), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy 
Meritorious Service Medal (fourth award), the Joint Service 
Commendation Medal and the Navy Commendation Medal (second award). He 
is also entitled to wear the Presidential Service Badge. He retired 
from the U.S. Navy on 1 November 1996, immediately assuming the 
position of Naval Affairs Director for the Reserve Officers Association 
of the United States.
    Fred Becker is listed in ``Who's Who In American Law,'' and ``Who's 
Who Among Emerging Young Leaders in America.'' He is married to the 
former Barbara Lee Sheinhouse of Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Barbara is 
a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve (Nurse Corps) (Retired). 
They have four daughters: Kimberly, a junior at East Carolina 
University; Lori, a freshman at The College of William and Mary; 
Melissa, a high school freshman; and Ashley, who is in elementary 
school.
                                 ______
                                 
                       Highway-Related Testimony
 Prepared Statement of Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California 
Air Resources Board; Barbara Patrick, Member, Board Supervisors of Kern 
 County and Member, California Air Resources Board; Manuel Cunha, Jr., 
     President, NISEI Farmers League; Less Clark, Vice President, 
   Independent Oil Producers' Association; and Catherine H. Reheis, 
       Managing Coordinator, Western States Petroleum Association
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the 
California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5, we are 
pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our 
fiscal year 1999 funding request of $100,000 for the California 
Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study.
    The San Joaquin Valley of California and surrounding regions exceed 
both state and federal clean air standards for small particulate 
matter, designated PM-10/PM-2.5. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act 
Amendments require these areas to attain federal PM-10/PM-2.5 standards 
by December 31, 2001, and the proposed PM-2.5 standards by mid-2003. 
Attainment of these standards requires effective and equitable 
distribution of pollution controls that cannot be determined without a 
major study of this issue.
    According to EPA and the California Air Resources Board, existing 
research data show that air quality caused by the PM-10/PM-2.5 problem 
has the potential to threaten the health of more than 3 million people 
living in the region, reduce visibility, and impact negatively on the 
quality of life. Unless the causes, effects and problems associated 
with PM-10/PM-2.5 are better addressed and understood, many industries 
will suffer due to production and transportation problems, diminishing 
natural resources, and increasing costs of fighting a problem that begs 
for a soundly researched solution.
    PM-10/PM-2.5 problems stem from a variety of industry and other 
sources, and they are a significant problem in the areas that are 
characteristic of much of California. Typical PM-10/PM-2.5 sources are 
dust stirred up by vehicles on unpaved roads, unpaved shoulders and 
dirt loosened and carried by wind during cultivation of agricultural 
land. Soil erosion through wind and other agents also leads to 
aggravation of PM-10/PM-2.5 air pollution problems. Chemical 
transformations of gaseous precursors are also a significant 
contributor to PM-2.5, as are combustion sources.
    The importance of this study on PM-10/PM-2.5 is underscored by the 
need for more information on how the federal Clean Air Act Amendments 
standards can be met effectively by the business community, as well as 
by agencies of federal, state and local government whose activities 
contribute to the problem, and who are subject to the requirements of 
Title V of the Clean Air Act. There is a void in our current 
understanding of the amount and impact each source of PM-10/PM-2.5 
actually contributes to the overall problem. Without a better 
understanding and more information--which this study would provide--
industry and government will be unable to develop an effective 
attainment plain and control measures.
    This research has direct applications to the Department of 
Transportation. Specifically, Federal Highway Administration research 
funds are available through Caltrans for a number of targeted proposals 
under discussion by officials of both Caltrans and the California Air 
Resources Board. Included among the priority research topics are:
  --Analysis of methodologies for estimating emissions of PM-10/PM-2.5 
        from California roadways; Significant emphasis on 
        characterizing emissions from unpaved shoulders due to large 
        amounts of heavy duty vehicle traffic through Central 
        California, which is necessary to support California's economy;
  --Characterization of the sources and composition of PM-10/PM-2.5 
        emissions from roadway construction;
  --Tunnel study; and
  --Characterization of heavy duty truck activity.
    These studies will explore the effects of roadway construction and 
use on ambient PM-10/PM-2.5 levels. Other proposals under review would 
address problems with unpaved road shoulders, roadway dust mitigation 
strategies and assessment of heavy duty truck travel patterns. 
Currently available data and other PM-10/PM-2.5 research efforts do not 
adequately address transportation concerns, so DOT support of this 
targeted research is essential.
    Our Coalition is working diligently to be a part of the effort to 
solve this major problem, but to do so, we need federal assistance to 
support research and efforts to deal effectively with what is 
essentially an unfunded federal mandate.
    Numerous industries, in concert with the State of California and 
local governmental entities, are attempting to do our part, and we come 
to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a fair 
federal share of financial support for this important research effort. 
In 1990, our Coalition joined forces to undertake a study essential to 
the development of an effective attainment plan and effective control 
measures for the San Joaquin Valley of California. This unique 
cooperative partnership involving federal, state and local government, 
as well as private industry, has raised more than $19 million to date 
to fund research and planning for a comprehensive PM-10/PM-2.5 air 
quality study. Our cooperative effort on this issue continues, and our 
hope is that private industry, federal, state and local governments 
will be able to raise an additional $8 million over the next two years 
to fund this important study.
    To date, this study project has benefited from federal funding 
through the United States Department of Agriculture's, the Department 
of Transportation's, the Department of Defense's, the Department of the 
Interior's and the Environmental Protection Agency's budgets--a total 
of $10.6 million in federal funding, including the $100,000 the 
Subcommittee provided in the fiscal year 1998 bill. State and industry 
funding has matched this amount virtually dollar for dollar.
    With the planning phase of the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air 
Quality Study nearly complete, a number of significant accomplishments 
have been achieved. These interim products have not only provided 
guidance for completion of the remainder of the Study and crucial 
information for near-term regulatory planning, they have also produced 
preliminary findings which are significant to the Department of 
Transportation's (DOT) interests.
    The Study is significant to DOT interests for a number of reasons. 
The San Joaquin Valley experiences some of the most severe PM episodes 
in the nation. The information being collected by the PM study is 
essential for development of sound and cost-effective control plans. 
Both directly emitted particulate matter and gaseous precursor 
emissions from transportation sources play a significant role in 
contributing to PM exceedances. Direct PM emissions include 
contributions from on- and off-road tailpipe exhaust, brake- and tire-
wear, and re-entrained dust from paved and unpaved roads. Gaseous 
exhaust and evaporative emissions from mobile sources also contribute 
to the formation of secondary ammonium nitrate, sulfate, and organic 
carbon. Without a sound understanding of the role that transportation 
sources play in PM exceedances, these sources could be subjected to 
unnecessary or ineffective controls. Control plans for the San Joaquin 
Valley, based upon the results of the PM study, will help address the 
potential impacts of emissions from transportation sources and ensure 
an equitable and effective distribution of controls.
    To this end, the PM study is expending significant resources to 
provide an improved understanding of emission sources within the San 
Joaquin Valley and surrounding regions and to define the impacts of 
these sources on ambient PM. A preliminary field monitoring program was 
conducted during the fall and winter of 1995-1996. Extensive air 
quality and meteorological measurements were collected. This database 
is being analyzed to address a number of questions including: (1) the 
sources contributing to elevated PM-10 and PM-2.5 concentrations, (2) 
the zone of influence of specific sources, and (3) wind flow patterns 
and transport routes between the Valley and surrounding areas. 
Additional research has addressed emissions from unpaved roads and 
evaluated the effectiveness of dust suppression methods. The results of 
this study suggest that current emissions factors are too low, and that 
emissions from unpaved roads are dependent upon road silt loading 
rather than on soil silt content. The study also identified polymer 
emulsion and non-hazardous crude oil products as the most effective for 
long-term dust suppression.
    The results of these studies are being used to design large scale 
field monitoring programs to be conducted in 1999 and 2000. These field 
programs will address both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 and PM-2.5 
standards. Surface and aloft monitoring of air quality, meteorology, 
fog, and visibility will be conducted at a cost of over $12 million. 
Final plans for these field studies are being developed, which will be 
carried out by numerous contractors over a broad area encompassing 
Central California, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Mojave Desert. 
Substantial resources will also be devoted to developing improved 
emissions estimates. A database of the field study results will be 
completed in 2001, with air quality modeling and data analysis findings 
available in 2002. This timeline is ideally positioned to provide 
information for federal planning requirements as part of the new PM-10/
PM-2.5 national ambient air quality standards.
    The Department of Transportation's prior funding and participation 
have enabled these projects to occur. Continued support by DOT is 
essential to implement a full scope of emissions assessment and control 
method demonstration projects for transportation related sources, and 
to ensure that DOT concerns are met.
    For fiscal year 1999, our Coalition is seeking $100,000 in federal 
funding through the U.S. Department of Transportation to support 
continuation of this vital study in California. We respectfully request 
that the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation provide this 
additional amount in the DOT appropriation for fiscal year 1999, and 
that report language be included directing the full amount for 
California.
    The California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 air quality study will not 
only provide vital information for a region identified as having 
particularly acute PM-10/PM-2.5 problems, it will also serve as a model 
for other regions of the country that are experiencing similar 
problems. The results of this study will provide improved methods and 
tools for air quality monitoring, emission estimations, and effective 
control strategies nationwide.
    The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of this 
request for a fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $100,000 for DOT to 
support the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Jack Van Steenburg, President, Commercial Vehicle 
                            Safety Alliance
            cvsa comments on fiscal 1999 omc budget proposal
    1. Duplication of programs/projects in the three budget categories: 
Safety Operations; Information Systems and Strategic Safety Initiatives 
of the National Motor Carrier Safety Program; and Motor Carrier 
Research.
    Discussion.--There appears to be a duplication of effort in one or 
more of these areas. Examples are Sections A and B of the new 
Information Systems and Strategic Safety Initiatives under the MCSAP 
program which are also duplicated under the Motor Carrier Research 
program. There are other examples as well.
    Recommendation.--A major reorganization and streamlining of the 
above programs should be undertaken in connection with the overall 
reorganization and strategic planning process that is now taking place 
in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
    2. ITS-CVO Funds.
    Discussion.--Major ITS-CVO program funding requests are submitted 
separately from the above three OMC programs yet are integrally related 
to all three programs, especially to the new performance-based approach 
emphasized under the basic MCSAP program. Most important to note is 
that these ITS-CVO funds are requested by the federal-aid highway 
division of FHWA rather than from the OMC and are not directed to the 
lead MCSAP agency in the states, with the result that the enforcement 
community may not share in these funds. MCSAP resources are limited at 
best and do not always allow the agency to fully participate in ITS-CVO 
planning and deployment.
    Recommendation.--Steps should be taken to ensure that appropriated 
ITS-CVO funds that directly relate to commercial vehicle safety 
enforcement reach the state MCSAP lead agency since it plays a key role 
in ITS-CVO planning and deployment. A full time ITS-CVO Coordinator for 
the MCSAP agency should be an eligible expense under such funding.
    3. Hazardous Materials.
    Discussion.--The 1990 HAZMAT ACT established a working group to 
develop a uniform permitting plan and placed responsibility with the 
OMC to carry out the program. OMC has not completed its work in this 
regard. This is a base state program much like IRP and IFTA. Seed money 
of at least $250,000 annually is needed for the next six years for 
states to make an initial commitment to the program.
    Recommendation.--The OMC should make funding available and 
otherwise actively promote state participation in what is known as the 
Uniform Program which would provide for uniformity in hazardous 
materials registration and permitting procedures.
    4. MCSAP Funding of Local Agencies.
    Discussion.--In recent years, local jurisdictions within states 
(largely municipalities) have indicted a desire to receive MCSAP money 
to conduct truck and bus inspections. In some states, such as Oregon 
and Missouri, this has worked well and uniformity and quality of 
inspections have been maintained due to state control. In some other 
states, however, the state enforcement agencies have not assumed 
responsibility and control of local jurisdictions. Thus, the ``locals'' 
have used inspections primarily for revenue enhancement purposes and 
quality and uniformity of inspections have suffered. Carriers have 
undergone duplicate inspections. Many times incorrect information 
resulting from these inspections has been entered into national data 
systems such as MCMIS and Safetynet.
    Recommendation.--To maintain uniformity and quality of truck and 
bus inspections at the local level, all funds received by local 
agencies should only be distributed through the lead MCSAP agency in 
the state. Further, the local agency should sign a memorandum of 
understanding with the lead MCSAP agency ensuring that the uniformity 
and quality of the inspections will be maintained to the level of 
overall state standards as well as ensure the quality of data entry 
into MCMIS and Safetynet. The memorandum should provide for training 
and continuing certification of inspection officers.
    5. Funding level for performance based plans, safety incentive 
grants, and the basic MCSAP program.
    Discussion.--The fiscal 1998 appropriation for the basic MCSAP 
program was approximately $73 million which when taken into 
consideration with the elimination of special earmarks, amounted to a 
substantial increase. Yet in the 1999 proposed budget, the OMC proposes 
to reduce the basic program to $67 million. While an additional 
$7,500,000 could be made available through Safety Performance Incentive 
Grants and another $7,000,000 through the border and high priority 
initiatives programs, not all states may be able to share funding under 
these latter two categories, particularly the Safety Performance 
Incentive Grants.
    Only 14 states thus far have been participating in the performance 
based pilot project. Approximately another 10 (8 pilot and 2 prototype) 
states are participants in the ITS-CVO CVISN program. The OMC has yet 
to issue a performance rulemaking establishing performance based 
criteria for the states. Thus, it is quite possible that some states 
may find themselves unable to compete for these additional funds. But 
these same states may have very good basic programs which are in fact a 
version of performance based programs, yet they may not have the 
benefit of training to prepare a CVSP (formerly SEP) plan for fiscal 
1999. The result may be that these states will receive less money than 
last year as they try to maintain an effective inspection program and 
increase inspector salaries.
    Recommendation.--In fiscal 1999, as in fiscal 1998, ensure that all 
states be allocated the Safety Performance Incentive grants by formula. 
It is premature to do otherwise. After the OMC issues its rulemaking 
laying out specific performance based guidelines and goals, and after 
all states have had the benefit of performance based training, then the 
following fiscal year should signal definite shift to performance based 
funding.
    6. Accident Causation and Investigation.
    Discussion.--With respect to crash causation, in its 1999 budget 
request, the OMC proposes to expend funds (amount not specified) to 
``build upon current research to determine appropriate crash causation 
factors after on scene investigations of a sample motor carrier traffic 
crashes (fatal and non-fatal).''
    Recommendation.--To accomplish this, the OMC should implement the 
principles learned in the Minnesota pilot accident investigation 
project by including other states in the pilot program and by 
initiating the development of a national accident causation data base.
    7. National Training Center.
    Discussion.--The OMC indicates plans to seek funds for contracting 
new professional curriculum developer/trainer for the NTC.
    Recommendation.--The OMC should further indicate in detail what its 
long term plans are for the NTC. With streamlining and downsizing a 
paramount goal of the FHWA reorganization underway, it may be that the 
function of training could be entirely privatized over time.
    8. Privatization of Inspections.
    Discussion.--Privatization of commercial vehicle inspection 
programs are being piloted in Canada, and are also being supported by 
the bus industry in the United States.
    Recommendation.--The OMC should encourage and/or undertake pilot 
programs in this regard to be able to accurately assess the feasibility 
and reliability of such programs.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Harry Harris, Chairman, I-95 Corridor Coalition, 
    Executive Board, Deputy Commissioner, Connecticut Department of 
                             Transportation
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony to 
the record of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
Appropriations, U.S. Senate regarding the fiscal year 1999 U.S. 
Department of Transportation Appropriations.
    On behalf of the I-95 Corridor Coalition, I want to thank the 
Subcommittee for its role in providing the Coalition with $1 million in 
the fiscal year 1998 U.S. Department of Transportation Appropriations 
(Public Law 105-66). We are currently unable to access those funds due 
to the lack of long term reauthorization of federal surface 
transportation programs; however, when that problem is resolved we will 
make highly productive use of the funds provided to us.
    This year, the Coalition celebrates its fifth anniversary. We are 
proud of what we have accomplished in our first few years. We believe 
these accomplishments have set a strong foundation for a promising 
future. We believe that all the investors in the Coalition have 
received a positive return.
    In order to plan most effectively for that future, the Coalition 
has prepared a new business plan designed to focus our efforts, expand 
participation, and encourage public-private partnerships. Central to 
the new business plan are eight ``tracks'' covering the following 
program areas: agency support; inter-regional multimodal travel 
information; coordinated incident management; commercial vehicle 
operations; intermodal transfer of people and goods; electronic payment 
services, coalition support services; and emerging issues. The 
continued support of all of the partners is essential to the overall 
success of the Coalition in these vital areas. An investment of $5 
million in fiscal year 1999 by federal stakeholders, coupled with 
contributions by all of the other members, will improve the safety and 
efficiency of the entire Corridor. As a result, the Coalition's efforts 
would contribute to the national goals of congestion reduction, 
improved shipment of goods and services inter-regionally, and better 
air quality.
                               background
    With more than 50 million residents, the Northeast Corridor is the 
most heavily burdened transportation network in the United States. 
Increasingly, the region's 13 major airports, more than two dozen major 
rail stations, 11 major seaports, and 30,000 miles of Interstate and 
primary highways need thoughtful, coordinated management across 
multijurisdictional lines.
    Interstate 95 is the backbone of this transportation system. In 
1993, the I-95 Northeast Corridor was named a Priority Corridor by the 
U.S. Department of Transportation, and the I-95 Corridor Coalition was 
established to enhance mobility, safety, and efficiency across all 
modes and transportation facilities that serve the region. The 
Coalition, a partnership of 27 transportation agencies, brings its 
diverse members and other partners together to cooperatively address 
the transportation problems that affect the entire region. We strive to 
add value to the activities of member organizations by leveraging 
resources, sharing information, and coordinating programs. While 
participating at the national level, we have focused on corridor needs 
and members' objectives, in order to develop practical standards that 
can be readily implemented and which promote interoperability.
                        seamless transportation
    Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) make a contribution to 
improving transportation safety and efficiency. However, the greatest 
obstacles to widespread realization of ITS' benefits are institutional 
barriers. ITS requires new types of regional collaboration, in order to 
move toward ``seamless'' systems operation and service delivery. 
``Seamless'' systems require new partners, both public and private. The 
regionally ``seamless'' and user-responsive transportation service goal 
at the core of ITS is based on implementing an operations-oriented, 
information-intensive approach requiring close communication and 
coordination between multiple systems and agencies. To help achieve the 
goal of ``seamlessness,'' the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 created the ITS Priority Corridor Program. The 
Priority Corridor Program provides a crucial bridge between the 
laboratory and large scale deployment. According to Dr. Christine M. 
Johnson, the Director of the Federal Highway Administration's Joint 
Intelligent Transportation System Program Office, the Corridor Program 
``has been extremely effective in teaching us about the institutional 
arrangements necessary to advance the intermodal and multimodal 
transportation needs.''
       traveler information and incident management: test results
    Advanced technologies and increased interagency communications, 
coordination and cooperation are the foundation of the I-95 Corridor 
Coalition's efforts. Upon this foundation it has developed a shared 
information network that supports a regional intermodal traveler 
information and incident management system. The cooperative efforts of 
members mean ITS technologies deployed locally can be used to benefit 
agencies--and more important, travelers--from Maine to Virginia.
    The Coalition's efforts were put to the test on October 9, 1997, 
when a tank truck carrying 8,000 gallons of gasoline was rear-ended as 
it made a legal U-turn in Yonkers, New York. The truck burst into 
flames almost immediately and then exploded beneath the overpass of the 
New York State Thruway. The fire buckled and literally melted portions 
of the seven-lane, 60-foot steel and concrete bridge, igniting a 
potential traffic nightmare for motorists up and down the Northeast 
Corridor.
    The accident sent local officials scrambling for ways to reroute 
the 76,000 vehicles that use the New York State Thruway daily, and 
triggered incident management activities around the region through the 
I-95 Corridor Coalition's Information Exchange Network (IEN). The IEN 
is a real-time information exchange network designed to interconnect 
Coalition member agencies' facilities throughout the Corridor. Within 
minutes, TRANSCOM, an independent group of agencies in the New York 
City metropolitan area serving as the communications center for the 
Coalition, flashed the news of the accident up and down the eastern 
seaboard using the 52 work stations that make up the IEN. Coalition 
members were notified of the incident's location, estimated duration, 
and the impact on traffic.
    Numerous Coalition agencies, assisted by the Coalition's 
communications center, then used a combination of variable message 
signs and highway advisory radio to provide news about the incident and 
inform motorists, especially long-haul truckers. This real-time 
information exchange contributed immensely to timely response 
throughout the entire region. For the 11 days until a temporary bridge 
could be installed, the IEN helped transportation officials reroute 
traffic and prevent more severe delays. States cooperated by suspending 
highway construction projects that might have created additional 
delays. Transit systems added more buses, trains and subways. By 
reaching travelers outside the New York Metropolitan region, the 
Coalition encouraged diversion, not just within the affected region but 
completely around it.
    Then IEN and inter-agency cooperation, were similarly effective in 
March, 1996, when a major fire closed a section of I-95 in the Port 
Richmond area of Philadelphia.
    We believe these examples clearly demonstrate the benefits of our 
ability to blend technology and institutional cooperation to solve 
real-world problems.
             electronic toll and traffic management (ettm)
    Another area which clearly reflects the Coalition's mission of 
blending technology with cooperation among jurisdictions is Electronic 
Toll and Traffic Management (ETTM). The Coalition's vision for ETTM 
involves one tag per vehicle, one account per customer, one set of 
credentials per commercial vehicle, and expanded use of ETTM 
technology. This vision reflects the need for, and importance of, ETTM 
compatibility and interoperability throughout the Corridor. ETTM 
interoperability enables commercial vehicle operators, commuters, and 
recreational travelers to move conveniently and safely throughout the 
Northeast Corridor. As specific projects are developed, this vision 
will serve as our guide.
                  commercial vehicle operations (cvo)
    No region in the country is as dependent on truck traffic for 
freight movement as the Northeast Corridor. Increased productivity of 
the motor carrier industry plays a vital role in the economic life of 
the region. The I-95 Corridor Coalition devotes considerable attention 
to improving both the safety and the efficiency of the motor carrier 
industry. The benefits are measurable. For example, a study from the 
Massachusetts Metro Transportation Association finds the cost of 
administrative compliance for motor carriers in the Commonwealth could 
be reduced by $2.4 million annually through adoption of ITS.
    The Coalition has developed a CVO Program for the Corridor that 
will enhance productivity of the goods-movement industry and will be 
consistent with the broad deployment of the commercial vehicle 
information systems and networks (CVISN). Full implementation of all 
aspects of the program will improve safety and enforcement through 
automated credentialing processes, and information-sharing 
partnerships. The Coalition has created a CVO Program Track Committee 
that is a partnership of transportation, registration, toll, law 
enforcement and motor carrier groups whose objective it is to work 
together on all issues affecting their implementation of ITS. Projects 
already initiated include:
  --A system that will provide commercial vehicle dispatchers and 
        drivers with information on congestion, incidents, weather and 
        routing that is necessary to meet the demands of shippers and 
        receivers in the Corridor for fast, timely and reliable 
        delivery of goods and services.
  --Projects using computerized roadside communications, automatic 
        vehicle ID, mobile inspection cameras, and a national Motor 
        Carrier Safety Program prototype that will help improve safety 
        and streamline inspections.
  --Since each state has a unique regulatory system, credentialing 
        programs often impose redundant and complex requirements on 
        motor carriers. The goal of a credentials administration 
        initiative is to reduce costs incurred by states and carriers, 
        and bureaucratic red tape by streamlining the credential 
        administration processes for commercial vehicles.
  --An electronic registration systems test will allow motor carriers 
        to register their vehicles electronically with state motor 
        vehicle agencies. Motor carriers will be able to use a basic 
        personal computer in their offices, or use the Internet to 
        register their vehicles and apply for permits. An interstate 
        clearinghouse will also be explored as a way to enable state 
        motor vehicle agencies to exchange information and reconcile 
        registration fee accounts among the states.
                       intermodal transportation
    A key focus of the Coalition is to facilitate transportation 
solutions that make the most efficient use of our transportation 
infrastructure. Increasingly, transportation must be viewed as a total 
system rather than a collection of modal entities. For this reason, the 
Coalition has identified the intermodal transfer of people and goods as 
a major area of emphasis for the next five years. We also recognize 
that if a true intermodal system is to become a reality, government and 
industry must become partners in its on-going development. For this 
reason, the Coalition is planning an ``Intermodal Forum'' to take place 
in mid or late 1998. The purpose of the Forum is to engage public and 
private stakeholders--shippers, air, rail and truck operators, port 
authorities, terminal operators, transit operators and others--in an 
interactive dialogue on intermodal challenges and opportunities. 
Results of the Forum will be used to focus Coalition activities that 
will benefit the member agencies throughout the Corridor.
                               conclusion
    Continued financial support of $5 million for federal fiscal year 
1999 will allow the I-95 Corridor Coalition to continue all these 
efforts, particularly in the areas of incident management, congestion 
mitigation, and commercial vehicle operations. Further, the Coalition 
will apply the funding to explore highly selected new areas such as the 
application of ITS to intermodal transportation, and to continue work 
on standards which will support interoperability of systems across 
members' boundaries. We appreciate the endorsement of our request in 
testimony submitted by the Coalition of Northeastern Governors and 
others. In closing, let me thank the subcommittee again for its valued 
support. We look forward to working with you in the future.
                                 ______
                                 
                    Passenger Rail-Related Testimony
  Prepared Statement of W. Ron Allen, President, National Congress of 
                            American Indians
                              introduction
    Good morning Chairman Shelby, Vice-Chairman Lautenberg and 
distinguished members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony 
regarding the President's budget request for fiscal year 1999 Indian 
programs and services. My name is W. Ron Allen. I am President of the 
National Congress of American Indians (``NCAI''), the oldest, largest 
and most representative Indian advocacy organization in the nation, and 
Chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe located in Washington State. 
The National Congress of American Indians was organized in 1944 in 
response to termination and assimilation policies and legislation 
promulgated by the federal government which proved to be devastating to 
Indian Nations and Indian people throughout the country. NCAI remains 
dedicated to advocating aggressively on behalf of the interests of our 
230 member tribes on a myriad of issues including the critical issue of 
adequate funding for Indian programs.
Department of Transportation
    Funding for the Indian Reservation Road (IRR) program, which funds 
the construction and maintenance of public roads that provide access to 
and within Indian reservations, Indian trust lands, restricted Indian 
land and Alaska Native villages, is authorized under the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, or ISTEA (Public Law 102-
240). The IRR program is jointly administered by the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). On 
September 30, 1997, authorization for ISTEA expired.
    There is an enormous need for transportation infrastructure on 
Indian reservations throughout this country. Fully 66 percent of the 
roads serving Native American communities are unpaved. These roads are 
dirt or clay or occasionally covered with gravel, ungraded and usually 
in a washboard and deeply rutted condition. On many Reservations, the 
roads regularly turn to mud or wash out in Spring and Fall rains. 
People walk for miles to get to their homes, and emergency services, 
health care, law enforcement, heating fuel, food, water and general 
commerce are disrupted.
    Any comparison of Indian roads to the rest of America's roads 
reveals a chronic inequity in the allocation of ISTEA Funds to Indian 
Reservation Roads (IRR). IRR roads make up 2.63 percent of all existing 
roads on the federal-aid highway system. Yet IRR roads have 
historically received less than 1 percent of the aid provided under 
ISTEA. S. 1173 as amended would increase overall transportation 
spending by 40 percent over the levels in 1991 law. But S. 1173 would 
nearly flatline the IRR roads when accounting for inflation.
    Indian reservations have a 31 percent poverty rate--the highest 
poverty rate in America. Indian unemployment is six times the national 
average; and Indian health, education and income statistics are the 
worst in the country. With the implementation of welfare reform well 
underway, tribal government leaders are taking up the challenge of 
creating jobs and spurring tribal economies. This critical work cannot 
be accomplished if transportation infrastructure is allowed to remain 
in its current deplorable condition. The funding allocation to Indian 
roads should be dramatically increased.
    Maintenance of IRR roads is also a critical issue. The Bureau of 
Indian Affairs has only $25 million available for the maintenance of 
roads on 340 Indian reservations in the lower 48 states. As a result, 
on average only $500 dollars per mile is spent on Indian roads 
maintenance, and in some instances as little as $80. States on the 
other hand, spend between $2,500 to $4,000 per mile for maintenance. 
One solution to this critical problem is to allow Indian Reservation 
Roads funds to be used directly by the tribes for road maintenance and 
increase funds available under this program, while ensuring that the 
BIA road maintenance program is retained.
    Mr. Chairman, efficient roads are vital to support most aspects of 
life on Indian lands including critical activities such as economic 
development, attending school, obtaining health care, and transporting 
people from welfare to work. The IRR program currently receives $191 
million; however, Indian country's transportation needs far outweigh 
this amount. During Senate reauthorization of ISTEA, Senator Domenici 
was able to increase funding for IRR to $250 million annually, the 
minimum level needed to ensure that tribal governments effectively 
address the needs of their communities . NCAI strongly supports this 
increase since it would help to significantly improve the living 
conditions on many of our reservations. Therefore, we urge the Senate 
Appropriations Committee to also support the $250 million funding 
level.
                               conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, we urge the Congress to fulfill its fiduciary duty to 
American Indians and Alaska Native people and to uphold the trust 
responsibility as well as preserve the Government-to-Government 
relationship, which includes the fulfillment of health, education and 
welfare needs of all Indian tribes in the United States. This 
responsibility should never be compromised or diminished because of any 
Congressional agenda or party platform promises. Tribes throughout the 
nation relinquished their lands as well as their rights to liberty and 
property in exchange for these on-going services as well as this trust 
responsibility. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget is a positive 
step towards acknowledging the fiduciary duty owed to tribes.
    We ask that the Congress consider the funding levels in the 
President's budget as the minimum funding levels required by Congress 
to maintain these services and the federal trust responsibility. The 
consensus of Indian country is that the federal government's budgetary 
process has failed to provide for effective services and minimum to 
raise the living standards of Indian communities consistent with non-
Indian communities. In order for federal government to reasonably 
expect tribal governments to truly achieve the self-determination, 
self-governance and self-sufficiency goals mutually identified by the 
federal government and the tribal governments will not be achieved 
unless meaningful increases are provided for Indian programs and 
services.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for allowing 
me to present for the record, on behalf of our member tribes, the 
National Congress of American Indians' initial comments regarding the 
fiscal year 1999 budget.
                                 ______
                                 
       Prepared Statement of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
    intelligent transportation systems on the pennsylvania turnpike
    The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is committed to continued 
investment and expansion into Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). 
The Turnpike has allocated considerable resources and staffing to three 
sequential phases of ITS technological implementation. An ITS Early 
Deployment Strategic Plan was completed in 1996 to identify goals and 
objectives for system implementation. The key areas have been addressed 
in three phases and will be expanded as further funds become available.
    Safety and traveler's information are two of the most important 
goals of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Many ITS components 
exist on the Turnpike and have been operational for some time. Call 
boxes are located at every mile, cellular number *11 can be utilized 
for instant communication with our fully staffed operations center, 
emergency services and response time have been integrated and 
coordinated for all sections of the Turnpike and are directed via a 
Computer Aided Dispatch System (CADS), and radio communications can be 
transmitted on the 506 miles of toll road by a microwave communication 
system. First Responder emergency vehicles are stationed at strategic 
locations along the system to provide initial containment and support 
during an incident.
    The Commission completed and began operating Phase I of an Advanced 
Traveler's Information System (ATIS) in March 1998. This $2 million 
project was funded entirely with Turnpike Commission financial 
resources. This project was initiated in conjunction with a major 
construction project in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The system 
includes three, fiber-optic, variable message signs and five highway 
advisory radios controlled from the Commission's operations center in 
Harrisburg. In conjunction with these methods to inform the motoring 
public, incident management plans were established to address 
anticipated problems between interchanges resulting from construction, 
weather or accidents. In order to insure all information is accurate, 
timely and useful, the Commission has added four full time Supervisory 
Operation Center Duty Officers to provided 24 hour, 7 day operation of 
the system in addition to the existing complement of approximately 15 
that nominally staff the Operation Center.
    Phase II of the Turnpike's ATIS will begin construction during Fall 
1998 and is scheduled for operation during Fall 1999. This project was 
funded in part with the $3 million Federal ITS appropriation provided 
in fiscal year 1997. This system expansion includes four, fiber-optic, 
variable message signs, eleven highway advisory radios and two closed 
circuit television cameras. This hardware will be installed at high 
traffic volume areas in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to provide real 
time driver information throughout the system. This project will also 
provide an integrated central computer control system for devices 
installed during both Phase I and Phase II. This central computer 
control system will also allow further expansion to include elements in 
future phases while integrating with other coordinating State, local 
and private intermodal agencies through the use of the National 
Transportation Communications for ITS Protocols (NTCIP) specifications. 
Specially video, audio and data will be made available to existing 
intermodal agencies as well as private organizations who specialize in 
transportation monitoring and dissemination. Weather, road and traffic 
conditions are on the Turnpike's Internet web site.
    The Commission is finalizing a scope of work for Phase III of the 
ATIS. This project will be partially funded with $6 million Federal ITS 
appropriation provided in fiscal year 1998. The planned scope of work 
for Phase III includes seven highway advisory radios, four variable 
message signs, seven closed circuit television cameras, two truck 
rollover systems, four roadway weather information systems, a number of 
traffic flow monitoring sites between Valley Forge Interchange and the 
Delaware River bridge, and between Mid-County Interchange and Lansdale 
Interchange, an overheight detection system in advance of the Lehigh 
Valley Tunnel, and an incident response vehicle to provide video and 
data from an incident scene to the Harrisburg operations center.
    Although financial resources are being maximized, there is still a 
significant shortage of financial resources for deployment of ITS 
technologies. It is anticipated that 4 to 7 years will be needed for 
full deployment. A federal-aid grant of $14 million would greatly 
assist the acceleration of the Commission's ITS program and will 
demonstrate a comprehensive, coordinated and integrated statewide 
system on a toll road with potential expansion to other agencies. It 
will marry separate components of ITS systems into a universal system 
that will be comprised of advanced telecommunications, information and 
computer technologies within the transportation infrastructure. It is a 
consumer oriented system for information and traveler service that 
would benefit both intrastate and interstate transportation.
    The Commission would like to further expand its ATIS in order to 
provide more timely, accurate and useful information to the motoring 
public to greet the 21st century. Further, real time traffic and 
weather information provided to the operations center will allow for 
more rapid detection, verification and response to roadway and weather 
incidents to minimize roadway hazards and maximize safety.
    To provide more accurate and timely information and warnings to 
drivers, the Commission would like to expand the traffic sensor 
coverage planned for in Phase III. In Phase III, traffic sensors are 
planned for installation in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 
metropolitan areas. Further installations of sensors between 
interchanges, augmented with concentrated installations in high volume 
locations will provide valuable information to the operations center. 
This information can then be disseminated to in-route drivers via the 
existing highway advisory radios and variable message signs. This 
information may also be further disbursed through the Commission's 
world wide web site and to Turnpike satellite facilities via local and 
wide area networks. In addition, this information will be shared with 
other public agencies including PaDOT, transit and port authorities. 
The Commission will actively pursue private partners to disseminate 
this information with value added information. This will help to 
demonstrate and facilitate the deployment of ITS in both urban and 
rural areas. In addition, this real time traffic information will be 
available and useful for commercial vehicle operators in providing just 
in time service.
    Incident detection and verification will be improved via deployment 
of additional closed circuit television cameras. These camera's will 
also be linked to existing video detection equipment in the tunnels. 
This information will also be made available to the Commission's public 
private partners for further dissemination.
    Incidents in the Commission's tunnels represent extremely dangerous 
conditions for drivers in the tunnel as well as drivers approaching the 
entrance. A tunnel incident detection and verification system would 
greatly improve the detection and response to these situations. A 
proposed system to be installed in the Tuscarora, Blue Mountain and 
Kittatinny Tunnels would include video detection sensors, speed 
sensors, lane control signs and signals and advance warning variable 
message signing.
    Due to the wide range of geographic regions served by the Turnpike, 
weather conditions vary greatly across the system. The Pennsylvania 
Turnpike has been known as the all weather highway and is vital 
critical link to and from the East Coast, during winter storms. In 
addition to the four weather stations to be installed in Phase III, 
further system coverage would be enhanced by adding more roadway 
weather sensor stations. Installations in locations which experience 
recurring weather events such as fog, icing and extreme temperature 
variations will be targeted. This system will allow the Turnpike to 
anticipate and more quickly respond to weather events and provide 
maintenance crews with information to better maintain the highway. This 
system will also allow travelers to obtain more accurate and timely 
weather information through the Commission's existing and expanded ATIS 
including pre-trip information through the Commission's web site and 
via our private partners.
    Improvements to the operation center may include development of a 
Geographic Information System or electronic map. This system will allow 
operators to identify on the map locations of the incidents, the number 
of lanes opened at an interchange, lane closures and will automatically 
identify the locations of call box calls and the nature of the call, 
locations of cellular phone emergency calls, status of traffic flow 
detectors, camera locations, weather sensor information and messages on 
the ATIS components while providing a central control system for all 
technologies.
    In order to improve service the Commission provides to commercial 
vehicle operators that use the Turnpike, an on line computer permitting 
system for oversize and hazardous material loads may be deployed. This 
system would allow commercial vehicle operators to obtain necessary 
permits via computer and will be linked to PennDOT's and surrounding 
states computer permitting systems. Preliminary discussions and 
research are being considered to provide commercial vehicles with a 
chip in the E-Z pass electronic toll transponder so that it could be 
located by the global position system satellites.
    In 1940, the Pennsylvania Turnpike sparked a revolution in the way 
motorists, truckers, engineers and consumers viewed highway 
transportation. By the continued implementation of ITS, the Turnpike 
will spark another revolution in this view, by providing the most 
efficient network for the movement of goods and people across the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and will continue as a model for state of 
the art highway facilities for the nation. Furthermore, by expanding 
existing, proven technology in a phased approach, the Commission is 
demonstrating how ITS can provide improved safety, efficiency, traffic 
flow and customer service to all travelers.
    The Turnpike's mission is to ``Operate and manage in a fiscally 
responsible manner, a safe, reliable and valued toll road system''. By 
providing appropriations for the implementation of ITS, the Turnpike's 
mission will drive us to deliver these services in an efficient and 
effective manner.
                                 ______
                                 
      National Highway Traffic Safety Commission-Related Testimony
 Prepared Statement of John H. Siegel, M.D., F.A.C.S, F.C.C.M.; Wesley 
J. Howe, Professor of Trauma Surgery, Chairman, Department of Anatomy, 
Cell Biology and Injury Sciences, New Jersey Medical School, University 
                of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
    Mr. Chairman, I respectfully present testimony on behalf of the 
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey--New Jersey Medical 
School. The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) 
is the largest public health sciences university in the nation. Its New 
Jersey Medical School (NJMS) is the academic medical facility for all 
of Northern New Jersey and its University Hospital serves as the Level 
I Trauma Center to coordinate the entire Northern region of the State.
    This testimony requests your continued support for the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Trauma Network composed 
of four university trauma systems functioning together in a consortium 
known as the ``CIREN: Human Crash Injury Project''. In addition to the 
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School in Newark, N.J., the consortium 
includes the Charles McMathias, Jr., National Study Center for Trauma 
and Emergency Services (EMS) of the University of Maryland in 
Baltimore, the William Lehman Injury Research Center of the University 
of Miami in Florida, and the Children's National Medical Center of 
Washington, D.C. These four centers have been working together in the 
study of motor vehicle crash injury which affects both adults, as well 
as children. Individually and collectively, these studies have resulted 
in new knowledge which has enabled the identification of the patterns 
of specific injuries resulting from real motor vehicle crashes. They 
have pointed the way towards the deployment of the newer safety devices 
and enabled the evaluation of their impact in reducing the severity of 
these injuries or preventing their occurrence. In the full NHTSA Trauma 
Network which supports the ``CIREN: Human Crash Injury Project'', three 
additional centers designed under the agreement between NHTSA and the 
General Motors Corporation have also been established and linked to the 
already existing four operational Trauma Network Centers. These three 
additional centers are totally funded by the General Motors Corporation 
for an initial three-year period, under an agreement which excludes GM 
funding for the four NHTSA centers.
    Important information concerning the effect of motor vehicle 
crashes on car structural integrity has been learned from 
experimentally-staged motor vehicle crashes and from the use of inert 
motor vehicle crash-dummies. However, it is necessary to go beyond the 
behavior of crash-dummies back to the scene of the accident, in order 
to determine the real mechanisms of injury and to understand the 
variability of the impact on different types of real people. For 
instance, the sixty-year-old woman who has some degree of osteoporosis 
will likely have a different pattern and magnitude of lower extremity 
and pelvic fracture injuries for the same impact velocity of crash 
compared to a twenty-five-year-old male.
    The studies carried out so far, at the New Jersey Medical School, 
have enabled the identification of different patterns of organ and 
extremities injury related to specific sites of passenger compartment 
intrusion and shown that these patterns are significantly different as 
a function of the direction of crash and its impact velocity. 
Collaborative studies in Baltimore and New Jersey have identified, 
subtle but important, aspects of sex and body habitus related driver 
behavior which can result in more, or less severe injuries to the lower 
extremities resulting from the same crash forces. The New Jersey and 
the Miami studies have allowed recognition of the motor vehicle crash 
patterns which provide clues to occult injuries which would otherwise 
be missed by the emergency medical service team in triaging patients 
from severe motor vehicle crashes. These factors have important 
implications for safety design and creation of biomechanical test 
instruments to ensure driver and passenger protection. Also, studies 
carried out by the Children's Medical Center in Washington, D.C. have 
focused on the precautions necessary in designing and locating 
children's safety seats to prevent infant injuries in motor vehicle 
crashes.
    Most important, the net result of these studies has been to focus 
on the development of motor vehicle safety measures which reduce the 
chance of injury rather than solely on the prevention of death. It is 
injury which is the most costly aspect of the motor vehicle crash, 
raising healthcare costs and forcing insurance premiums upward, not to 
mention the personal catastrophes which occur daily when a family 
member is severely injured.
    The studies carried out by the New Jersey Medical School and 
Maryland components of the CIREN Human Crash Injury Group have already 
identified important characteristics of injury which were not 
previously recognized. These studies have focused on the importance of 
the air-bag in reducing the severity of brain injuries in high impact 
frontal motor crashes. In regard to this last observation, 
investigations carried out jointly at the New Jersey Medical School and 
the Charles McMathias National Study Center, have shown that air-bag 
deployment in frontal motor vehicle crashes significantly (p0.01) 
reduced the incidence of severe brain injury (GCS-12) from 67 percent 
to 29 percent even though the total incidence of brain injuries 
remained unmodified. Air-bags in these types of major force car crashes 
also reduced the incidence of shock, face fractures, and lower 
extremity fractures and as a consequence, lowered the resulting need to 
extricate the patient from the motor vehicle, thus speeding the time to 
treatment. This type of study emphasizes how the ``Human Crash Injury 
Project'' (CIREN) and the NHTSA Trauma Network can develop information 
about the effect of protective devices that cannot be obtained from 
crash-dummy research, since crash-dummies have no brains and the crash 
impact on a crash-dummy's skull produces no discernable change in the 
dummy's intellect or problem-solving ability.
    The prospective detailed medical crash injury research 
investigations carried out under the ``CIREN: Human Crash Injury 
Project'' supplement and enhance the retrospective statistical studies 
now carried out by NHTSA under the NASS Program. It is a measure of the 
importance with which this project is viewed nationally that the 
present Administrator of the National Highway Safety Administration, 
Dr. Ricardo Martinez, M.D., has indicated that NHTSA wishes to 
integrate these research efforts into a national Trauma Network to 
include New Jersey Medical School: UMDNJ, The Lehman Center at Jackson 
Memorial Hospital in Miami, the McMathias National Study Center in 
Baltimore, and the Children's Medical Center in the District of 
Columbia, and to link these four existing centers to the three new 
privately-funded GM Centers.
    Finally, there is a major new initiative occurring in the 
Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration), which is 
the development of an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). As part 
of the ITS the Automobile Crash Notification System (ACN) program is in 
the process of developing an automatic crash notification micro-chip 
which could be inserted into motor vehicles so as to identify the 
location and nature of the crash. This new technology has the potential 
to enable the crash forces which are producing specific injuries and 
injury patterns to be identified and quantified so that improved safety 
measures including motor vehicle structural modifications and the 
deployment of additional air-bags can be developed. The proper 
evaluation of the potential effectiveness of the ACN and the rate at 
which this new technology can be integrated with Emergency Medical 
Services (EMS) systems nation-wide could be most effectively determined 
by integration of the testing aspects of the ACN Program with the 
Trauma Network and its CIREN: Human Crash Injury Project. Not only can 
this combined program more rapidly evaluate the ACN system, but it will 
also result in its being implemented immediately in the six states of 
the Trauma Network, plus the District of Columbia, as a first phase 
effort.
    This effort could solve a very serious problem identified by 
studies of the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS). This is that 
while the death rate of trauma victims brought to Trauma System 
Hospitals is decreasing, there has been an increase in on-scene 
fatalities. This is due in part to delays in notification of EMS team 
to find and retrieve these injured patients, especially in rural areas. 
The NHTSA supported by Trauma Network could also provide a mechanism 
for translation of this technology into true state-wide safety 
programs, since all of the regions mentioned and all of the 
participating trauma centers have excellent EMS systems which are 
closely linked to their network of trauma centers. The ACN technology 
has the potential to be an order of magnitude increment in motor 
vehicle safety. Its technical development and independent field testing 
should become integrated at an early phase, so that its value can be 
determined and a feedback relationship with the Department of 
Transportation's Highway Traffic Safety Programs and the state-wide EMS 
Trauma Services can be more rapidly accelerated. The value of allowing 
the Trauma Research Centers which form the CIREN: Human Crash Injury 
Project to provide this interactive feedback is that all of the 
principal investigators are not only experienced trauma surgeons, but 
are also recognized as trauma investigators with extensive experience 
in studying the mechanisms of motor vehicle crash injury.
    Speaking for myself, with the concurrence of the other directors of 
these affiliated programs, we request that the House Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies designate funding 
at the level of $500,000 per center to each of the four present NHTSA-
funded research centers participating in the Human Crash Injury Project 
for a total of $2 million. We also request that this appropriation be 
established on a multi-year basis to extend over a five-year period at 
the same annual rate adjusted for inflation, so that continuing 
evaluation and feedback can be provided by the Trauma network on an on-
going basis into the future. Also, we request that these Trauma 
Research Centers be used to evaluate the role of the Intelligent 
Transportation System's Automobile Crash Notification System in 
reducing excessive field mortality and injury exacerbation of motor 
vehicle crashes due to the prolongation of crash recognition by the 
present EMS system. This will take additional support to implement and 
test.
    This latter additional support should allow approximately 5,000 
cars per core center to be instrumented with appropriate communications 
equipment. This level of support would enable the evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the ACN Program in identifying potential serious 
injuries and in facilitating the rapidity with which Emergency Medical 
Services Advance Life Support Teams could be deployed to the scene of 
the crash. It is felt that this type of immediate crash notification 
and localization technology when fully developed and integrated with 
all of the Nation's regional Trauma Centers could have a major impact 
in reducing the mortality and injury complications resulting from rural 
motor vehicle crashes and from serious crashes occurring in urban areas 
at times when there are few bystanders to request EMS 911 services.
    In closing, I would like to express my personal gratitude for the 
past support of the Senate and its Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Related Agencies of our group's collective research 
which, by identifying the mechanisms of human crash injury, has already 
resulted in improved safety and in a reduction in the incidence and 
severity of motor vehicle crash injuries. Motor vehicle crashes place 
all of us at risk, both personally as well as financially, and 
negatively impact on major segments of our economy. The development of 
safer motor vehicles and the invention of new and imaginative state-of-
the-art motor vehicle crash safety devices and notification systems has 
spawned a new industry with enormous growth potential, which has 
already begun to integrate the telecommunications and motor vehicle 
industries. The small amount of national resources directed into this 
type of research will pay enormous dividends, not only by the reduction 
of motor vehicle crash injury costs, but also by the creation of new 
technologies and new businesses which can stimulate employment and 
national growth.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of G. Linn Roth, Ph.D., Chairman, Committee for a 
    Balanced Radionavigation Policy, International Loran Association
    As Chairman of the International Loran Association's (ILA) 
Committee for a Balanced Radionavigation Policy, I am writing regarding 
an issue of critical importance to the domestic and international 
radionavigation community--the need for additional steps to assure 
continuation of the Loran system within the United States. We 
respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the hearing 
record in conjunction with the fiscal year 1999 Department of 
Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill and in 
particular the budget for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and 
the Coast Guard.
                              introduction
    As has been noted in previous legislative history and the Federal 
Radionavigation Plan (FRP), the United States has always operated 
radionavigation systems, which includes Loran, as a necessary element 
to safe transportation and to meet civil requirements for cost-
effective services. Because of the evolving interest in satellite 
navigation, consideration is being given to the phase out of various 
existing radionavigation systems. It has been proposed by the 
Administration that the Loran system be shut down by the year 2000 
despite an overwhelming consensus among marine, aviation, surface, 
telecommunications and other users--even the proponents of satellite 
technology--that Loran is necessary to enhance safe transportation and 
to provide a complement and backup for GPS to protect the critical 
national infrastructure in the event of temporary loss or disruption of 
satellite technology.
    The DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills for fiscal year 
1997 and fiscal year 1998 included nearly $8,000,000 to begin 
revitalization of the Loran infrastructure. Moreover, recent Coast 
Guard authorization legislation included a provision requiring the 
Department of Transportation (DOT), in cooperation with the Department 
of Commerce, to provide a plan defining the future use of and funding 
for upgrade of the Loran infrastructure.
    Work was to be completed on that plan early in 1997 but was only 
initiated late in the year. Booz-Allen and Hamilton (BAH) was tasked by 
DOT to assist in compiling data and undertake a cost/benefit analysis 
in conjunction with preparation of the plan mandated by Congress. BAH 
completed its work early this year and its preliminary findings support 
retention of Loran. In fact, BAH received more than 2,000 responses 
during its public comment period and 94 percent of the responses 
expressed support for continuation of Loran.
    In recent years, Congress has repeatedly supported steps to prompt 
action on initiatives to take advantage of the substantial investment 
that the federal government and users have made in Loran and the 
compatibility that the technology has with the Global Positioning 
System (GPS). In view of the instability of the Coast Guard budget, 
there has also been bipartisan support in Congress for the DOT to 
consider joint, shared funding arrangements among the various modes 
that benefit from the use of Loran technology.
              loran u.s. status/international developments
    There are millions of Loran users and beneficiaries in the U.S. 
Loran, which is a well-proven, reliable and cost-effective technology, 
is undergoing substantial international growth throughout Europe, 
China, India and Russia. Most significant is the recently developed 
`Eurofix' system, which allows the Loran system to be utilized both for 
augmentation of GPS, providing differential corrections and integrity 
messaging, and for a backup service, providing navigation services in 
the event of GPS signal loss or interference. Further, the 
international implementation of Loran includes the facility to 
synchronize to GPS, greatly improving the robustness, availability and 
accuracy of the total navigation service available in the participating 
nations. This growth has benefited U.S. exports and employment, and can 
potentially add several hundred million dollars to future exports. 
Importantly, great strides in the international acceptance of GPS can 
be expected should the U.S. choose to harmonize with the navigation 
services in these nations.
                   loran multimodal user perspective
    Marine, aviation, surface and other users are convinced that 
current DOT policy to terminate various radionavigation services and 
ultimately rely solely on the Global Positioning System (GPS) and its 
augmentations, contradicts long-standing U.S. transportation policy and 
is inconsistent with our nation's transportation safety objectives. In 
view of recognized GPS vulnerabilities and transportation user safety 
goals, U.S. policy that may eventually position the nation as fully 
dependent on GPS as its sole-means navigation system is short-sighted 
and will not meet ongoing user safety requirements.
    In the meantime, there is a broad consensus among users that Loran 
should be fully supported as a part of the future navigation mix. In 
fact, in addition to the public responses recently received by BAH, 
more than 22,000 individuals have signed petitions and several thousand 
letters have been sent to various government officials supporting 
Loran.
    Groups and organizations representing millions of users and 
beneficiaries that support continuation of Loran include: Aircraft 
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), BOAT/US, National Marine 
Electronics Association (NMEA), National Fisherman, National 
Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), National Air 
Transportation Association (NATA), National Business Aircraft 
Association (NBAA), Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association (SAMA), 
International Navigation Association (INA), International Loran 
Association (ILA), Northwest European Loran Systems (NELS), Far East 
Radionavigation Service (FERNS), European Union (EU), International 
Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA), and the Radionavigation 
Intergovernmental Council.
    I have attached with my statement, specific recent examples of user 
comments in support of Loran.
    The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection
    Recent findings of the Report of the President's Commission on 
Critical Infrastructure Protection, titled ``Critical Foundations: 
Protecting America's Infrastructures'' also contradict existing policy 
of the DOT and some of its agencies to rely solely on satellite 
technology in the future. In its report, plain and unequivocal concerns 
are expressed about relying on sole means technology. The report 
assesses the general lack of preparation by the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) and agencies like the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to deal with ``cyber threats''. It recommends, 
among other actions, that the DOT: `` * * * Fully evaluate actual and 
potential sources of interference to, and vulnerabilities of, GPS 
before a final decision is reached to eliminate other radionavigation 
and aircraft landing guidance systems. * * * ''
                 the federal radionavigation plan (frp)
    The 1992 FRP and several previous editions of the FRP explicitly 
stated Loran was expected to be part of the radionavigation mix until 
2015 and a phase-out period of 10-15 years would be established before 
termination of any system. The 1994 and 1996 versions of the FRP 
completely ignored these established policies, and summarily abandoned 
commitments made to more than 1.3 million Loran users, domestic Loran 
manufacturers and foreign governments. Perhaps more importantly, the 
current FRP ignores earlier FRP endorsements of the significant 
benefits provided by a balanced radionavigation mix.
    The policy expressed in the current FRP has unquestionably 
undermined the significance and credibility of this important document 
domestically and internationally. In addition, it damaged our country's 
leadership role with respect to U.S. Loran technology which is 
benefiting from substantial, growing international interest.
                     budget/economic ramifications
    It is important to view GPS and Loran in light of current budget 
considerations. As you may know, current life cycle cost estimates 
indicate the Coast Guard and the FAA will spend $3-4 billion to augment 
GPS to improve its performance. This is beyond the estimated $10 
billion invested to develop GPS and on-going future operation and 
maintenance (O&M) costs estimated to be in the range of $500 million 
annually. In addition, the Coast Guard is currently providing 
differential global positioning system (dGPS) service for the nation's 
navigable waters while simultaneously plans are being advanced to 
provide a National DGPS (NDGPS) service with a system that will be in 
competition with existing commercial DGPS service providers. 
Procurement steps for the FAA's system are underway, but because many 
complex technical issues have not been resolved, it is uncertain 
exactly what that system will be, what it will cost, and when it will 
be fully operational and proven. These efforts overlook the most 
insidious vulnerability of GPS, that of availability. If the GPS signal 
is lost there is no navigation signal to which the differential 
corrections can be applied. Consequently, the need for a complement to 
GPS which provides navigation service when the GPS signal is lost. Only 
Loran can provide that service.
    At the same time, the Loran system has an established 
infrastructure serving millions of users and beneficiaries and has 
proven to be extremely reliable with an annual O&M cost of 
approximately $20 million. The entire infrastructure can be 
incrementally upgraded over a period of years, remote maintenance 
capabilities can be utilized, and civilian caretakers could replace 
Coast Guard personnel. Implementing these steps would reduce O&M costs 
substantially. Using recent upgrade costs for European transmitter 
improvements and known costs for operating the Canadian Loran 
infrastructure of about $250,000 per transmitter site, the ILA 
estimates these steps could reduce on-going O&M costs to about $7-9 
million annually and permit personnel reductions of more than 150 
government positions consistent with Coast Guard streamlining plans.
    Clearly, the U.S. is committed to satellite technology. At the same 
time, Loran offers a well-proven, compatible technology which promises 
a most cost-effective and efficient complementary navigation safety 
net.
    In addition, for several years aviation officials have been 
opposing the premature shut down of Loran. A paper done in late 1994 
entitled ``The Economic Impact on General Aviation Pilots of the Early 
Shutdown of the Loran Navigation System'' provided conservative 
estimates indicating an early termination could have very adverse 
economic ramifications. As stated in the paper:
    ` `* * * These conservative figures, taken by themselves, show a 
devastatingly significant, adverse economic impact on general aviation 
if the Loran system known today in the United States is shut down 
prematurely. In view of the $200 million projected cost to general 
aviation aircraft owners, it categorically supports the continued 
operation of the Loran system to its projected life of 2015.''
    ``A cost figure has been given as $17 million annually to operate 
the United States continental Loran system. At that rate, it would take 
over 10 years (11.7) to reach the $200 million cost to general aviation 
if it is discontinued prematurely. The impact on marine users would be 
astronomically greater. Suggested at a very conservative factor of 
10:1, it would place us well over 100 years to recoup/balance the 
projected losses * * *.''
               user safety considerations/scientific data
    No navigational system is infallible. While every system has 
limitations, ground-based and satellite systems typically do not suffer 
from the same vulnerabilities and therefore, are very complementary. 
U.S. industry has already recognized GPS frailties and implemented 
complementary ground-based technologies to produce extremely robust 
systems. For example, GPS is used in automotive vehicle location (AVL) 
systems and in the telecommunications industry for precise time 
synchronization. AVL systems typically incorporate dead-reckoning 
systems to take over when GPS signals are unavailable in dense urban 
areas. Cellular phone networks commonly use combined GPS/LORAN systems 
to provide continuity when GPS signals are unavailable or disrupted by 
TV or other broadcast interference, or by line-of-site blockage from 
nearby buildings or trees.
    Reports in scientific literature and the popular press have 
thoroughly documented GPS availability is subject to fundamental 
limitations due to a variety of conditions including geomagnetic 
storms, line-of-site blockage and unintentional and intentional 
jamming. Furthermore, augmenting GPS to improve its accuracy 
performance--through Differential GPS (dGPS) radiobeacon broadcasts or 
the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)--is a necessary enhancement 
but will have no effect on resolving the loss of GPS navigation service 
caused by these vulnerabilities.
    A report done by the DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems 
Center presents an analysis that shows how the availability of GPS is 
enhanced when GPS is combined with Loran. The report demonstrates that 
basic GPS service availability can be increased from 99.8 percent to a 
combined GPS and Loran service availability of more than 99.9 percent
                           national security
    It is clear that GPS is an important technology, but rigorous 
scientific data and reasoned analysis also demonstrate it is not 
perfect. If the United States converts to GPS as a sole means 
navigation system, the country will become increasingly dependent on 
the system and exposed to its frailties. Availability limitations will 
be stressed by natural phenomena as well as intentional and 
unintentional man-made intervention. In view of current world 
instability and increasing terrorist activities, it is clearly possible 
that individuals or hostile governments might try to cause 
transportation or telecommunications disruptions using small, easily 
constructed, portable GPS jammers. Recent press reports have described 
such scenarios and have provided evidence that such jammers are 
available for sale. In fact, Coast Guard studies indicate such jamming 
devices can be built from commercially available parts for as little as 
$50. All of these concerns are outlined in the recent Report of the 
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection and any 
future U.S. navigation policy relying totally on satellite navigation 
would be a contradiction to the findings of that report.
                new loran technologies and applications
    While advances in Loran technologies have been largely overshadowed 
by the enthusiasm for GPS, they have been proceeding using advanced 
digital signal processing techniques and microprocessor technologies 
not previously applied to Loran receivers. State-of-the-art Loran/GPS 
technology can offer substantially improved performance over 
conventional Loran receivers. Improvements will include: Automatic 
acquisition and tracking of up to 40 Loran transmitters simultaneously; 
increased geographic range, including transoceanic coverage; provision 
for dGPS through Eurofix; new antenna technologies that virtually 
eliminate precipitation (P-static) interference; and provision for 
differential Loran.
    These new developments mean, for example, that a single receiver 
can simultaneously track virtually all Loran transmitters in the 
continental U.S., concurrently increasing geographic coverage by tens 
of thousands of square miles allowing transoceanic coverage and 
significantly improving navigation accuracy and availability.
    Additionally, tests of a new digital Loran receiver equipped with a 
magnetic antenna demonstrated that Loran can track vehicles in a dense 
urban area like Manhattan where GPS cannot operate. The tests were 
commissioned by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 
and raised the interest of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The DARPA 
work recognized that GPS required Loran augmentation for an application 
in which there was a need to locate foot soldiers in an urban warfare 
scenario. The DEA would like to use this Loran technology to monitor 
movements of drug dealers in urban environments, and this new Loran 
application could obviously have an impact on contemporary social 
problems.
    Finally, integration technologies can be applied to Loran so that 
highly advanced, accurate receivers can be miniaturized. In today's 
world, the electronics for a combined GPS/Loran receiver could be 
placed within a cigarette pack, and such a device would provide all the 
security inherent in a combined, ground/satellite-based system.
                                summary
    In view of demonstrated, realistic technical and funding risks, 
coupled with anticipated schedule delays in implementing and making 
available the benefits of satellite augmentation technology, there is a 
continuing requirement for Loran. An incremental investment of 
resources will permit improvements which support satellite 
augmentation, reduce operating costs and allow upgrading of outdated 
tube technology to ensure that Loran will be available well into the 
next century. This upgrade also will permit reduction in future 
operating costs from about $20 million annually to approximately $7-9 
million. For example, many transmitter sites with on-site support staff 
could be operated remotely or with fewer staff after upgrading to solid 
state technology, reducing personnel related costs. Further savings 
could be realized if DOT contracted out the operation and maintenance 
of the Loran transmitter sites.
    The Loran system is established, proven, reliable, inexpensive, and 
an ideal complement to GPS. Loran has by far the largest existing 
multimodal user base, and these users have made significant economic 
expenditures based on repeated government commitments that the system 
would be supported until at least 2015.
    For a variety of reasons based on scientific data, it is not 
prudent to concentrate our nation's immediate radionavigation future on 
a single, very expensive, complex space-based system. GPS 
unquestionably requires augmentation of its three fundamental 
characteristics: accuracy, availability and integrity. No other 
service, only Loran can augment all three, and the choice of a mix of 
combined ground/satellite-based radionavigation systems is clearly in 
the nation's best interests. A complementary mix of ground/satellite 
systems can provide a level of user safety and national security that a 
sole-means satellite system can never offer.
    Considering its $20 million annual O&M costs and even future system 
upgrades, the cost/benefit of Loran is enormously favorable from a 
national safety and efficiency perspective. In the context of current 
and future budgetary limitations, given new technological advances in 
Loran and the substantial improvements it provides to user safety, 
telecommunications integrity and national security, it is clear support 
for Loran is consistent with our nation's transportation safety 
objectives and it makes good sense from a taxpayer perspective.
                            recommendations
    The ILA respectfully urges the following:
  --Actions directing the Department of Transportation, in cooperation 
        with its agencies along with other appropriate departments and 
        agencies, to implement a plan to assure the Loran system will 
        be supported and funded on a jointly shared agency funding 
        arrangement for the foreseeable future.
  --Steps directing the Department of Transportation and its agencies 
        to recognize the benefits of a combined ground/satellite-based 
        radionavigation mix and to endorse continuation of Loran as a 
        compatible technology to GPS as part of that mix. The 
        recognition and endorsement should take the form of an 
        unequivocal policy statement that domestic and international 
        users, manufacturers and governments can believe.
    A fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $20 million to:
  --Support an incremental program of revitalizing, upgrading and 
        automating the Loran infrastructure to reduce manning and 
        related requirements, logistics costs, energy consumption and 
        improve reliability;
  --Replace remaining tube-type transmitters with high efficiency 
        solid-state equipment;
  --Provide other mechanisms such as Loran synchronization with GPS and 
        differential corrections on the Loran signal to make full use 
        of the compatibility of satellite and Loran technology.
    The ILA appreciates the opportunity to present these views and 
concerns. We are prepared to cooperate in every way necessary to 
convince you and other interested members of Congress to initiate 
additional steps ensuring continued funding and support for Loran as a 
uniquely complementary technology providing necessary GPS augmentation 
well into the next century.
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of James P. RePass, President, Chief Executive 
               Officer, The National Corridors Initiative
    On behalf of the National Corridors Initiative I respectfully ask 
that this committee acts to ensure the survival of a national passenger 
rail system, in voting sufficient funds to make certain that the work 
begun with the passage of the Amtrak Reform Act last year can go 
forward.
    As a bipartisan business development and environmental forum, the 
National Corridors Initiative has testified before various 
Congressional committees. Our common theme has been this: that our 
nation's transportation system needs to be a balanced one, and that 
continued overreliance on two heavily-subsidized transportation modes, 
auto and air, not only leads to gridlock and winglock, but actually 
harms the nation's economy by artificially constraining growth. The 
volume of real estate required to accommodate the automobile and the 
airplane is simply enormous, and in the great cities and suburbs of 
this country it is becoming untenable. And the need for a true national 
intercity rail network that serves the working and middle classes, and 
not just Coastal business elites, is increasing rather than 
diminishing.
    The national passenger railroad system, both before and after the 
creation of Amtrak, has been systematically starved of capital. Critics 
who complain that Amtrak has received $20 billion over its almost three 
decades of life need to remember that we spend more than that on 
highways in a single year--and that is counting only Federal dollars, 
not state or local matches or expenditures.
    What is remarkable is that Amtrak does as well as it does--and we 
know that it needs much reform--given the meager resources at its 
disposal. The $2.3 billion of capital in the Amtrak Reform Act should 
be correctly seen as supplemental, to make up in a small way for 
decades of disinvestment. Now that a new Board of Directors is being 
put into place, with a clear mandate from Congress for change, and to 
create a true national rail system that is cost-effective and 
efficient, I ask that you give them the tools to finish the job.
    Thank You.
                                 ______
                                 
     Research and Special Programs Administration-Related Testimony
 Prepared Statement of Michael Carney, Chairman, Association of Waste 
                    Hazardous Materials Transporters
    On behalf of the Association of Waste Hazardous Materials 
Transporters (AWHMT), I am submitting a statement for inclusion in the 
Subcommittee's hearing record regarding the proposed fiscal year 1999 
budget for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
                         interest of the awhmt
    The AWHMT represents companies that transport, by truck and rail, 
waste hazardous materials, including industrial, radioactive and 
hazardous wastes, in North America. The Association is a not-for-profit 
organization that promotes professionalism and performance standards 
that minimize risks to the environment, public health and safety; 
develops educational programs to expand public awareness about the 
industry; and contributes to the development of effective laws and 
regulations governing the industry.
    As a community of taxpayers dependent on the effective 
administration and enforcement of federal hazardous materials 
transportation laws and regulations, we feel compelled to file these 
views and concerns about how DOT's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety 
(OHMS) and Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) have carried out their 
respective so-called ``hazmat'' responsibilities.
                               background
    The transportation of hazardous materials involves producers and 
distributors of chemical and petroleum products and waste, transporters 
in all modes, and manufacturers of containers. DOT estimates that 
upwards of 800,000 shipments and as many as 1.2 million regulated 
movements of hazardous materials occur each day. The production and 
distribution of hazardous materials is a trillion dollar industry that 
employs millions of Americans. As a major export, the transportation of 
these materials contributes positively to our trade balance. These 
products are pervasive in the transportation stream and in our society 
as a whole.
    While these materials contribute to America's quality of life, 
unless handled safely personal injury or death, property damage, and 
environmental consequences can result. To protect against these 
outcomes, the Secretary of Transportation is charged to ``provide 
adequate protection against the risks to life and property inherent in 
the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce by 
improv[ments]'' to regulation and enforcement.\1\ The Secretary's 
authority to accomplish this mission is embodied in the Hazardous 
Materials Transportation Act (HMTA).\2\ In 1990, the Hazardous 
Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) was significantly amended for the 
first time. Subsequently, amendments, albeit less significant, were 
added in 1992 and 1994. As a consequence of these amendments, Congress 
directed DOT to accomplish a number of tasks. How DOT has handled these 
responsibilities is the focus of this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 5101.
    \2\ 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              office of hazardous materials safety (ohms)
    The commerce of hazardous materials demands that OHMS have 
intermodal, as well as international, expertise. It regulates a diverse 
community of interests and must constantly mange the tension between 
safety and efficiency in the transport of these materials.
    When compared to other modal administrations, the OHMS staff is 
small. At the same time, it is important to recognize that OHMS has 
outperformed larger administrations. During DOT's regulatory 
reinvention initiative, for example, OHMS reached 100 percent of its 
goal to eliminate or reform outdated rules. It has tackled significant 
issues within deadlines set by Congress. With the exception of a couple 
of studies,\3\ it has accomplished all the tasks delegated to it since 
the enactment of the 1990 amendments. Other administrations cannot 
claim that record. Despite this record of accomplishment, OHMS may not 
have the resources to close the gap on a backlog of routine 
administrative tasks essential to the safe, efficient transport of 
these materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 5105(d) and 5116(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOT's fiscal year 1999 budget request for hazardous materials 
safety proposes only a cost-of-living increase for personnel 
compensation and benefits. We are concerned that a flat programmatic 
budget will not be adequate to enable the OHMS to accomplish its 
mission. While the budget justification underscores many of the 
accomplishments of the OHMS, it does not elaborate on the scope of work 
yet to be done. Following is our analysis of OHMS's budget request:
Regulatory Backlog
    OHMS is, foremost, a rulemaking authority. We are concerned that 
the budget request does not identify and prioritize the backlog of 
critical rulemakings, letters of interpretations, and preemption 
determinations. By OHMS's own admission, 13 high priority rulemakings 
are in progress--some have been open for years--along with a backlog of 
500 exemption applications.\4\ RSPA has made a hallmark of this budget 
request the fact that it is going to open and close a rulemaking in 
less than 9 months that will double the amount of fees currently 
collected for emergency planning and training grants to states and 
Indian tribes.\5\ OHMS has told industry in no uncertain terms that it 
has set aside resources to meet this aggressive schedule. While the 
priority of this rulemaking is clearly understood, it leaves us to ask 
about resources and priority of the remaining rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ RSPA Fiscal Year Budget Submission, page 38.
    \5\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, there is no statement about the priority of processing 
petitions for preemption determinations. Federal law requires that 
decisions on preemption determinations be reached within 180 days of 
receiving the filing.\6\ The four oldest petitions have been deferred 
until pending the finalization of one of OHMS's ``high priority'' 
rulemakings. Still, RSPA has not achieved the Congressionally-mandated 
180-day turnaround for any of the other pending petitions. Not counted 
in this analysis are the three additional petitions that have been 
filed since the first of this year--nearly doubling the number of open 
petitions. OHMS's ability to swiftly deal with petitions for preemption 
is essential to the purpose Congress hoped to achieve in granting 
administrative preemption, namely that the preemption determination 
process would be an alternative to litigation.\7\ A priority of the 
HMTA is to achieve greater regulatory uniformity. Essential to that 
objective is the ability to respond through the preemption 
determination process to inconsistent non-federal requirements that 
``creat[e] the potential for unreasonable hazards in other 
jurisdictions and confound[] shippers and carriers which attempt to 
comply with multiple and conflicting registration, permitting, routing, 
notification, and other regulatory requirements.''\8\ Clearly, OHMS's 
ability to stay on top of its preemption obligations is being 
undermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\49 U.S.C. 5125(d).
    \7\ In authorizing the preemption determination process, Congress 
found that ``the current inconsistency ruling process has failed to 
provide a satisfactory resolution of preemption issues, thus 
encouraging delay, litigation, and confusion.'' H.Rept. 101-444, Part 
1, page 21.
    \8\ Public Law 101-615, Sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasmat Registration and Fees
    The HMTA authorizes OHMS to require the registration of hazardous 
materials shippers, carriers, and container manufacturers.\9\ Instead, 
OHMS has chosen to register only those categories of shippers and 
carriers mandated by Congress.\10\As a consequence of narrowly 
implementing its registration authority, OHMS has not achieved a goal 
of Congress to have a census of the community OHMS regulates. 
Additionally, OHMS has left untapped the entire universe of potential 
payers to fund the Emergency Planning and Training Grants (EPTG) in 
spite of the fact that the Grants have never been fully funded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(2).
    \10\ 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are also concerned about the administration of the registration 
program. Currently, OHMS assesses $50 per registrant for administrative 
costs. We believe this assessment--fully 20 percent of the total fee 
paid--is excessive. We believe the administrative costs can be reduced 
by making the registration numbers permanent and/or allowing multi-year 
registrations. Whatever funds are saved though better administration 
should be reprogrammed to the EPTG.
    One of the issues that will have to be addressed in OHMS' announced 
rulemaking to increase the collection of hazmat registration fees is 
obviously the amount of the fee. Many in industry, including the AWHMT, 
have made a commitment to assist OHMS meet its hazmat registration 
revenue goal in recognition of agreements reached during the 1990 
amendments to the HMTA. However, we also want reasonable assurance that 
the new fee scheme will not over fund the program inasmuch as DOT is 
not required to refund excess collections.\11\ We would prefer a fee 
scheme that does not vary from year to year. Of particular concern is 
the financing of the North American Emergency Response Guide (NAERG). 
For good reason, however, OHMS publishes its NAERG every three years. 
The last two publications of the NAERG have been paid for out of hazmat 
registration fees. In fiscal year 1999, $700,000 is requested for this 
purpose. No funds were requested in fiscal year 1997 or 1998. Rather 
than spiking the revenue demand on the hazmat registration program 
every three years, we recommend that the funds for this activity be 
spaced out and carried over the three year period so as not to disrupt 
either the hazmat registration fee schedule or the amount of grants 
available to states and Indian tribes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 5108(g)(2)(B).
    \12\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Planning and Training Grants
    We support OHMS's recommendation to use the existing coordinating 
mechanism of the National Response Team and, for radioactive materials, 
the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee, to 
coordinate and provide technical assistance to states and Indian 
tribes, rather than diverting funds to a variety of federal agencies to 
accomplish the same task. OHMS hopes to accomplish this objective by 
amendment to the HMTA prior to the beginning of fiscal year 1999.\13\ 
Consequently, we question the budgetary request under this account and 
believe that the $300,000 should be reprogrammed for the critical 
purpose of emergency responder training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, we cannot support the Administration's insistence on 
allowing up to 25 percent of grant funds for the hazmat training of 
small businesses when 3.2 million responders need training nationally 
and on average the grants program reaches about 114,000 annually.\14\ 
As noted below, OHMS sponsors, and should continue to sponsor, a number 
of initiatives to aid private sector compliance through conferences, 
training materials, information hotlines, and the like. In addition, a 
panoply of private sector training and consulting services is 
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement
    OHMS acknowledges that the number of entities subject to inspection 
and enforcement will increase with the extension of the HMR to 
intrastate transportation of hazardous materials, yet no budget 
increase is requested in this area. Likewise, we believe it unrealistic 
to expect that OHMS will ``[r]educ[e] the historically low average 
annual number of fatalities and serious injuries related to the 
transportation of hazardous materials'' if the incident experience of 
intrastate transportation must be accounted for.\15\ At the same time, 
OHMS is acknowledging that the universe of shipments for which a 
credible inspection presence must be maintained has been underreported. 
For years, the figure ``500,000 shipments a day'' was used. OHMS now 
believes that number to be closer to 800,000 shipments and 1.2 million 
movements a day. We agree that a ``strong enforcement program is 
vital'' to OHMS's overall safety program and that a ``good enforcement 
program focuses on obtaining the highest rates of compliance, not just 
a high tally of enforcement actions.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 24.
    \16\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Assistance
    Clearly, one of the greatest successes of the OHMS program must be 
the technical and training resources given to the regulated community. 
These resources include a hotline for responding to technical 
compliance or more general matters of regulatory interpretation, the 
NAERG, the COHMED (cooperative hazardous materials enforcement 
development) program, the OHMS web site, and a CD-ROM modular training 
series. These services and products are either provided free or at 
comparatively nominal cost. Hazardous materials transportation is a 
highly regulated, complex enterprise. OHMS' compliance assistance is of 
untold value to the regulated community, especially small 
businesses.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, pages 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Activities
    While the focus of our members' interest is mainly domestic, 
hazardous materials transportation is a global enterprise. Domestic 
movements are inevitably affected by international agreements. We 
support RSPA's continued and vigorous participation in international 
fora where hazmat transportation policy is set.
Information Collection
    We want to underscore the importance and necessity of the hazardous 
materials information system. The data collected and maintained in the 
data base is not available from other sources. Not only does the HMIS 
allow OHMS to identify and analyze safety risks for regulatory 
purposes, it also,
  --assists non-federal governments identify problematic routes;
  --can be used to focus enforcement efforts;
  --is used by industry in its risk management initiatives; and
  --can be used to defuse public concern about hazardous materials 
        transportation by validating the extraordinary safety record of 
        this industry, considering the potential of these materials to 
        cause serious harm.
    OHMS is considering refinements to the system that would allow 
electronic filing of reports. This should be supported.
Staffing
    To carry out its HMTA delegations, OHMS' ability to recruit and 
retain personnel needs to be competitive within the Department and the 
private sector. We hope that Congress will ensure that OHMS has the 
staff sufficient for carrying out its many responsibilities.
    In all, OHMS staff should be commended for the excellent job 
accomplished in light of increasingly complex workload and stagnant 
resources.
                     office of motor carriers (omc)
    By way of contrast, FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has also 
been charged with accomplishing aspects of federal hazmat law. Since 
1990, OMC has been delegated authority to permit motor carriers of 
hazardous materials; provide for the inspection of motor vehicles 
transporting highway-route controlled quantities of radioactive 
materials; implement a uniform, reciprocal state-based hazmat 
registration and permitting program for motor carriers; provide for the 
annual updating and publication of state-designated hazardous materials 
highway routes; and report on the safety considerations of transporting 
hazardous materials by motor carriers near federal prisons.\18\ None of 
these relatively few delegations have been accomplished. In fact, to 
our chagrin, OMC has requested authority from Congress in the context 
of legislation reauthorizing the HMTA to study these issues for an 
additional three years prior to acting.\19\ No matter the excuse, we 
find it insupportable that OMC has failed to achieve these 
Congressional goals. We recommend that Congress urge the Secretary to 
redelegate and reallocate funding from OMC to OHMS to accomplish these 
objectives. OHMS has proved competent and capable of responding to the 
necessary demands of Congress to ensure that hazardous materials are 
and continue to be transported with an extraordinary high degree of 
safety and efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 49 U.S.C. 5109, 5105(3), and 5119, and Public Law 103-311 
Sec. 121.
    \19\ See S. 1173, Section 3215, adding new Sec. 5128 to the HMTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               conclusion
    The transport of hazardous materials is a trillion dollar industry 
that employs millions of Americans. It has been accomplished with a 
remarkable degree of safety in large part because of the uniform 
regulatory framework authorized and demanded by the HMTA. Within the 
Federal Government, OHMS is the competent authority for matters 
concerning the transportation of these materials. Its role in this 
regard should be strengthened. Despite productivity that averages 40 
administrative actions a day, however, this small agency has a backlog 
of correspondence, rulemaking petitions, and technical applications for 
exemptions and approvals. It and the rest of the programs under the 
RSPA umbrella are still waiting for the nomination of an administrator. 
We have recommended that more, not less, responsibility be delegated to 
OHMS. We have recommended this because the Office has proven over time 
to be approachable, determined to give fair hearing to all, and capable 
of making a decision, though we may not always agree. We know OHMS will 
make the most of any resources given.
                                 ______
                                 
      Prepared Statement of Shippers, Container Manufacturers and 
                              Transporters
    Industries involved in the shipping and transporting of hazardous 
materials are joining together to support the functions performed by 
the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) of the Department of 
Transportation's (DOT) Research and Special Programs Administration 
(RSPA). We believe that OHMS and RSPA are pivotal in maintaining the 
safety and integrity of our national transportation system. The 
reasonable standards and effective regulations developed with the 
participation of the regulated industries and our local communities 
permit very hazardous, yet essential, materials to use the same 
transportation infrastructure as passenger cars and trains, and school 
buses, with a high degree of safety. It is essential that OHMS be 
adequately funded and staffed to assure that our transportation 
infrastructure is maintained and enhanced to support continued growth 
and expansion of our economy.
    The hazardous materials transportation industry in the United 
States is comprised of producers and distributors of chemical and 
petroleum products and waste, transporters by rail, highway, air and 
vessel, and manufacturers of containers. There are 800,000 shipments 
daily--approximately 300 million shipments a year. It is a trillion 
dollar industry that employs millions of Americans. Hazardous materials 
include chemicals, petroleum products, explosives, industrial and 
medical gases, hazardous wastes, radioactive wastes and consumer goods 
such as fingernail polish, household cleansers, and swimming pool 
additives. Hazardous materials are used every day by every American. 
They are on every railroad and highway and at every shipping and 
airport terminal in the United States and abroad. They are essential to 
our quality of life, provide jobs for millions of Americans and, as a 
major export, enhance our trade balance.
    The commonality of these materials in transportation is that they 
can be hazardous if not handled, packaged, marked and transported in a 
safe manner. The safety record of this industry is extraordinary 
considering the potential of these materials to cause serious harm. The 
federal office responsible for administering the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act is the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety in the 
(OHMS) in the U.S. DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration 
(RSPA). OHMS, to the extent its budget allows, works cooperatively with 
the State and local governments, many federal and international 
agencies and the many constituencies impacted by the program including 
the regulated industry, the public, and safety and environmental 
groups.
    The hazardous materials industry and emergency responders support 
the federal hazardous materials program for safety reasons but also 
because it assures the efficiency of the movement of these materials 
between modes, within and between states and between the U.S. and 
points abroad. This is important to our nation's economy and, of 
course, the hazardous materials transportation industry itself. The 
significance of this business, both domestically and internationally, 
to the economy and the potential impact on public safety and health and 
the environment makes this a necessary and proper federal program.
    We believe that the current program is working to accomplish the 
objectives of safe and efficient transportation. The program must 
remain a strong and effective federal program within the DOT. The 
primary reason the intermodal hazardous materials program works as well 
as it does is that OHMS has been delegated responsibility for setting 
and implementing hazardous materials transportation policy and 
coordinating the Department's hazardous materials transportation 
programs. The Associate Administrator of OHMS reports directly to the 
Administrator of RSPA. The transportation community, emergency 
responders, and the public benefit from ``one-stop'' communication with 
DOT on matters affecting hazardous materials transportation. This 
organizational strength also facilitates communication and policy 
oversight between the Department and the Congress. Dilution of this 
responsibility could have a negative impact on the program.
    There are improvements that can be made in this extraordinary 
federal program that are related to the budget. We would be pleased to 
work with the Appropriations Committees to assure that the hazardous 
materials program remains strong, efficient and responsive to the needs 
of the public and the transportation community.
    Congress should consider the following issues and concerns.
    DOT's budget request for the hazardous materials transportation 
program should be adequate to further the goals of the Hazardous 
Materials Transportation Act. The stated intent of Congress in enacting 
the HMTA was the furtherance of: efficient, uniform and consistent laws 
and regulations for hazardous materials transportation; enhanced safety 
and accident prevention; and a network of trained emergency responders. 
DOT's strategic plan and the fiscal year 1999 hazardous materials 
transportation budget should reflect these goals.
    The staffing level and pay grades should be structured to assure 
that OHMS has the resources, including the expertise, to carry out an 
effective program and to provide the necessary coordination and support 
for the Department's intermodal hazardous materials transportation 
enforcement program.
    DOT's budget request proposes that DOT be authorized to use funds 
from the Emergency Planning and Training Grants (for State and local 
hazardous materials planning and training) to assist small businesses 
in complying with the hazardous materials regulations. We oppose this 
diversion of funds away from the State and local training programs. 
This is contrary to the original congressional intent in establishing 
this grant program. DOT should continue to sponsor initiatives, 
including conferences, training materials and information hotline, to 
aid small businesses in complying with the Act but these initiatives 
should be funded from the operating budget of the Office of Hazardous 
Materials Safety, as in previous budgets.
    Support for the OHMS's international program should be increased. 
As you know the uniformity of our domestic regulations with the 
international standards for hazardous materials transportation are 
critical to our industry's global competitiveness. If an international 
standard for packaging differs from a U.S. standard, generally the 
international standard will prevail, with potential safety and cost 
impacts for the American public and the transportation industry. It is 
vitally important that OHMS provide leadership in international 
standard setting.
    On the domestic front, uniformity between state and federal 
requirements has been recognized by Congress as essential to ensure the 
safe, environmentally protective and efficient movement of hazardous 
materials. OHMS and RSPA's legal staff has served the Secretary as the 
source of legal expertise in determining issues of uniformity. This 
dedicated legal expertise should be maintained.
    In conclusion, the following associations representing companies 
involved in the shipping and transporting of hazardous materials 
support a strong, efficient, responsive and adequately funded hazardous 
materials safety program to assure the safety of the nations vital 
transportation system.
    Institute of Makers of Explosives; Compressed Gas Association, 
Inc.; National Tank Truck Carriers; Chlorine Institute, Inc.; National 
Paint and Coatings Association; National Propane Gas Association; 
Association of Waste Hazardous Materials Transporters; National 
Association of Chemical Distributors; Association of Container 
Reconditioners; American Trucking Association; The Fertilizer 
Institute; National Private Truck Council; Edison Electric Institute; 
Railway Progress Institute; and National Industrial Traffic League.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The Interstate 
Natural Gas Association of American (INGAA) appreciates the opportunity 
to submit testimony for the record regarding fiscal year 1999 funding 
for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), which is part of the Research 
and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) at the Department of 
Transportation (DOT).
    The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) is a 
trade organization which represents virtually all of the interstate 
natural gas transmission companies operating in the United States, as 
well as natural gas transmission companies in Canada and Mexico. 
INGAA's member companies transport over 90 percent of the natural gas 
consumed in the United States through over 280,000 miles of interstate 
pipeline.
    As we have stated before, pipeline safety is a top priority for all 
of INGAA's member companies. We work closely with the Office of 
Pipeline Safety to seek ways to continue to improve on our safety 
record. While pipeline transportation is the safest method of 
transporting energy to our growing economy, we are pursuing new ways to 
improve our efforts. In particular, we are focusing on new technology 
and more sophisticated ways to manage risk to the public. Some of our 
member companies have applied to participate in the risk demonstration 
program approved as part of the ``Accountable Pipeline Safety and 
Partnership Act''. (Public Law 104-304) will permit these companies to 
tailor their safety programs to focus more accurately on addressing the 
actual risks that challenge various segments of their pipelines.
    The OPS and the pipeline industry agreed to the authorized levels 
set forth in Public Law 104-304. In this legislation, Congress adopted 
two authorization amounts, one that caps the entire OPS budget ($36.442 
million for fiscal year 1999) and one that caps the portion that can be 
raised through pipeline safety user fees ($29 million for fiscal year 
1999). The budget submitted this year by the Administration again 
breaks both of these caps.
    INGAA is more supportive of the budget request that was submitted 
to the Office of the Secretary by OPS which we obtained through a 
Freedom of Information Act request. This budget sets the pipeline user 
fee at $28 million and takes an additional $1 million from the existing 
OPS reserve account. It also takes $7.4 million from the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund.
    INGAA supports continuing to draw down the OPS reserve account to a 
fiscally responsible level. Third party damage is a significant cause 
of pipeline accidents and the primary cause of public injuries and 
fatalities. INGAA supports the diversion of excess reserve funds to 
provide grants to one-call centers and for state risk management 
grants. Providing grants to one-call centers helps to improve 
notification procedures and practices which are important accident 
prevention measures. Allocating these grants directly to one-call 
centers maximizes the effectiveness of these dollars.
    State pipeline safety representatives have been encouraged to 
participate in the interstate pipeline risk management demonstration 
program. States want to be closely involved in evaluating risk 
management as a safety strategy and to play an active role in reviewing 
the projects as they develop. INGAA can support a draw-down of the OPS 
reserve account of $.5 million to support these state grants for the 
next two to three years until the report on the demonstration program 
is submitted to Congress. At that time, it should be appropriate to 
consider sunsetting this grant.
    INGAA supports an increase in the amount of funds OPS obtains from 
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. OPS has indicated that it will be 
spending a significant amount of resources over the next few years 
regarding environmental policy, ground water protection, oil spill 
response, and coordination with states regarding hazardous liquid 
pipelines. The Oil Spill Liability Trust fund was established for the 
purpose of funding these activities. OPS has a number of 
responsibilities under OPA90 and it is appropriate that these 
activities be funded directly from that trust fund.
    In the R&D area, we support an increase in the funding for non-
destructive evaluation up to the amount in the OPS budget proposal to 
the Office of the Secretary of $593,000.
    INGAA also can support providing additional money from the Oil 
Spill Liability Fund for mapping as this project will include 
environmentally sensitive areas. It is our understanding that the 
funding requested in 1999 will allow the completion of 70 percent of 
the national pipeline mapping system. The remaining 30 percent is for 
segments of the pipeline network where the operator is in the process 
of migrating from a paper system to a digital database or where the 
pipeline operator needs to update his/her records through field 
verification. We understand that OPS will wait for the digital data as 
it is the most cost beneficial format for the operator to submit and 
for OPS to process.
    INGAA thanks you and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit 
this testimony on the OPS budget for fiscal year 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Multimodal Testimony
     Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
    The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) would like to thank 
you for this opportunity to share the organization's views. The 
Governors would like to thank the subcommittee for its support and 
funding for the broad range of transportation programs that make up our 
vital intermodal system. We encourage you to continue this support in 
fiscal year 1999.
    An integrated, safe and adequately financed national surface 
transportation system, as provided for in the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, is essential to the economic, 
social and environmental well-being of the Nation and the Northeastern 
states. This system includes the highway and rail infrastructure over 
which cars, trucks, buses, commuter, intercity and freight rail provide 
essential mobility for people and goods in urban, suburban and rural 
communities.
    In addition, the Northeast's intermodal transportation system 
contributes to the financial and economic success of our nation by 
providing a critical link to national and international economies. This 
extensive and aging system--highways, bridges, transit and their 
connections to air and water-based ports--facilitate the seamless flow 
of people and commerce among the Northeastern states. They tie this 
important regional market to the Nation economically, thereby 
contributing to the Nation's ability to compete in a global economy. 
The Northeastern states are the Nation's largest consumer markets. In 
addition, materials and finished products generated in the region are 
distributed to markets throughout the Nation on its transportation 
systems. Our border crossings and port facilities are gateways to the 
global marketplace.
    The CONEG Governors urge the subcommittee to support, to the 
highest possible level, funding which maintains and enhances a 
connected, seamless, intermodal, national transportation system. More 
specifically, the CONEG Governors recognize and call for the 
subcommittee's support of the following investments which have national 
and regional significance:
    Maximize the Federal investment within a strong Federal-State-local 
partnership.--The CONEG Governors urge the subcommittee to invest, to 
the maximum extent possible, in the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. Such federal investments reinforce the link between 
transportation and social and economic well-being, and also act as 
important economic multipliers that enhance the region and the Nation's 
ability to compete. America's transportation needs, especially in the 
Northeast states, far exceed current expenditures in all modes.
    Invest in safety.--Safety remains the primary concern of the 
Governors. Motor vehicle crashes exact a tremendous toll on American 
society. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 
the total economic cost of motor vehicle crashes in 1994 to be $150.5 
billion, costing taxpayers $13.8 billion or the equivalent of $144 per 
household. Programs such as Operation Lifesaver, and other efforts to 
improve highway and railroad grade crossing safety, are excellent 
examples of successful programs.
    Increase the highway obligation ceiling.--The overwhelming majority 
of freight and passenger traffic in the Northeast moves by road. Nearly 
two-thirds of all North American trucking tonnage passes through the 
Northeast, reflecting its status as a major importer and exporter of 
merchandise and the home of major ports serving the Nation. The 
region's trucking industry is the most locally oriented in the Nation, 
with nearly 65 percent of the trucks operating fewer than 50 miles from 
their base. This high proportion of local traffic reflects the 
concentration of population and vehicles along a narrow corridor in the 
region.
    We applaud the subcommittee's effort to provide additional funds by 
increasing the Federal-Aid Highway Obligation Ceiling in fiscal year 
1998 to $21.5 billion. Continuation of these efforts is critical, with 
a recommended goal in fiscal year 1999 of the levels established for 
the highway and transit programs in the ISTEA reauthorization.
    Continue support for transit.--Public transportation continues to 
play a vital role in the lives of millions of residents in the 
Northeast, both urban and rural. For example, the Governors strongly 
support reform of the Nation's welfare laws and regulations. 
Particularly in the Northeast, the Governors view transit as one means 
of bridging the distance gap between home and job. The challenge is 
magnified by the dispersion of jobs throughout a multi-state region. 
The ability to link trips becomes essential. Federal funding is 
critical to stimulate transit's efforts to meet these challenges.
    We encourage your support of transit operating assistance. We are 
grateful that the subcommittee was able to preserve a modest amount of 
federal operating assistance in fiscal year 1998, and hope that can 
continue in fiscal year 1999. We also thank the subcommittee for the 
flexibility to use these funds for preventative maintenance of the 
transit system. Transit services and the federal operating assistance 
that supports them play an equally vital role not only in large cities, 
but even more importantly in small cities and in rural areas of the 
Northeast. These funds must cover a large geographic service area. 
While rural households--compared with urban households--are more likely 
to have a car, those rural residents dependent on public transportation 
have limited options for service, and are usually elderly or disabled. 
Many of these rural trips are for essential services: access to 
employment opportunities, health care, and nutritional and social 
service programs.
    The federal transit program provides essential capital funding for 
investment in our nation's transit infrastructure. The Federal New 
Starts program encourages investment in new transit infrastructure in 
order to pursue the goals of reducing congestion and improving air 
quality. New Jersey's Urban Core project, which includes our nation's 
first Design-Build-Operate-Maintain transit project, the Hudson-Bergen 
Light Rail Transit System, is an excellent example of a successful New 
Start project. The Northeast also relies on the Fixed Guideway 
Modernization program and the rest of the transit capital program to 
enable investment on the many transit systems on which our economy 
depends.
    Continue Federal capital investment in intercity passenger rail and 
the Northeast Corridor.--The Governors continue their strong support of 
funding for national intercity passenger rail. Intercity passenger rail 
makes a unique contribution to the complex fabric of the Northeast's 
mobility. The Northeast Corridor and its feeder system is the financial 
linchpin of the national passenger rail network. The Governors look 
forward to the imminent completion of the Northeast Corridor 
Improvement Project (NECIP) between Boston and New York City. By 
reducing travel time and increasing rail ridership, additional capacity 
is provided for both the highway and aviation systems. In addition, 
NECIP provides air quality benefits which improve the quality of life 
for the Northeast and contributes to attainment of Clean Air Act goals.
    Improved intercity rail service will bring more passengers to 
central business districts in all major Northeast cities. It will also 
spur growth in suburban and smaller urban areas such as Route 128 
outside Boston, Massachusetts and New Haven, Connecticut. We therefore 
urge an appropriation of $200 million for the NECIP/Northeast High 
Speed Rail Improvement Project (NHRIP) Grant.
    The Governors applaud the subcommittee's success in achieving full 
funding in fiscal year 1997 for NECIP and the Rhode Island Rail 
Development Project as well as identifying funding for the Pennsylvania 
Station Redevelopment Project in New York City. We note that the entire 
Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington) is in need of investment to 
bring its various systems into a state of good repair, and we urge the 
subcommittee's continued commitment to funding Amtrak at the levels 
authorized in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Public 
Law 105-134). This carefully crafted agreement provides Amtrak with the 
operating and capital framework necessary to become a cost-effective, 
efficient national passenger rail system.
    The Governors encourage Congress to direct the U.S. Department of 
Transportation to reprogram funds to initiate the independent 
assessment study of Amtrak as called for in Section 202 of the Amtrak 
Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-134). Further, we 
ask Congress to provide adequate funds to complete the study. This 
time-sensitive review is essential for the work of the Amtrak Reform 
Council and others interested in the future of a national intercity 
passenger system.
    Support investments in new technologies.--In many congested urban 
areas, building new infrastructure or expanding existing infrastructure 
are not viable options. We thank the subcommittee for its past support 
of the I-95 Corridor Coalition to enhance the safety and capacity of 
the existing highway and transit systems. For example, the electronic 
toll system on the Tappan Zee Bridge handles 1,000 vehicles per hour, 
compared to 350-400 vehicles per hour handled by manual tolls. 
Therefore, we urge your support of the Intelligent Transportation 
System Priority Corridor Program in general, and the I-95 Corridor 
Coalition in particular and recommend that the subcommittee provide $5 
million to continue the efforts of the Coalition.
    Continue Federal participation in research and development and 
public/private partnerships.--With an eye to the future, we encourage 
continued federal participation in the public-private research and 
development partnership in areas such as turbo-electric locomotive 
development, transit fare collection systems, electronic toll 
collection, deployment of diesel multiple unit train sets, and maglev 
systems.
    The development and implementation of these systems offers 
transportation and economic benefits. For example, growing worldwide 
demand for high speed train products will create lucrative job 
opportunities for thousands of skilled American workers. The use of 
biodiesel in locomotives could be a productive area for testing as a 
way to reduce harmful emissions. Planning and development funds could 
help implement and expand the ISTEA 1010 program which will eliminate 
the hazards of railway-highway crossings in up to five railway 
corridors. Further, the Federal Railroad Administration's Next 
Generation High-Speed Rail Program continues to make a valuable 
contribution to the development of the next generation non-electric 
locomotive (both diesel and turbo). Federal funding of the program, in 
conjunction with a state-private partnership, would be a wise 
investment.
    Fund border crossings and other improvements linked to 
international agreements.--Freight mobility is a key to maintaining 
regional and national competitiveness in a global economy. To improve 
international trade and competitiveness, funds should be available for 
international border crossings, ports, intermodal facilities, and other 
improvements which are identified as a result of the North American 
Free Trade Agreement and other international agreements. For example, 
the Calais, Maine--St. Stephen, New Brunswick crossing is the seventh 
busiest in the Unites States. However, it has a critically insufficient 
infrastructure to handle the current traffic.
    In summary, this year promises to be a time of profound challenges 
to transportation systems, particularly in the Northeast. These include 
the authorization of multi-year planning and funding of surface 
transportation programs beyond the current extension of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; implementation of the 
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act; the transformation of Conrail; 
pending changes in air quality standards; the transportation needs of 
former welfare recipients; and an increase in international trade. 
Continued, thoughtful investments by this subcommittee will make a 
dramatic difference in enabling the Nation and the region to provide 
safe and efficient transportation for its citizens.
    The Coalition of Northeastern Governors would like to thank 
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Lautenberg, and the rest of the 
subcommittee for the opportunity to present this testimony and for your 
dedication and support for the Nation's transportation investments.
                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Kirk Brown, Secretary, Illinois Department of 
                             Transportation
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the 
opportunity to submit testimony concerning fiscal year 1999 U.S. DOT 
appropriations on behalf of the Illinois Department of Transportation 
(IDOT) to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Related Agencies. We thank Subcommittee Chairman Richard Shelby and the 
members of the Committee for their past support for a strong federal 
transportation program and for taking into consideration Illinois' 
unique needs. Our recommendations for overall funding priorities and 
our requests for transportation funding for special Illinois' interests 
are described below.
                     highway obligation limitation
    IDOT urges the Subcommittee to set a fiscal year 1999 obligation 
limitation consistent with the level in the final surface 
transportation reauthorization bill. Since we expect the final bill to 
significantly increase highway authorization levels, we would expect 
the fiscal year 1999 obligation limitation to increase similarly.
    Funding promised by ISTEA authorizations during the fiscal year 
1992-1997 period was not provided because of the restrictive obligation 
limitations. To be able to truly utilize the expected higher funding 
from the surface transportation reauthorization legislation, annual 
obligation limitations must match authorization levels. Federal funds 
are a crucial element in state and local highway preservation and 
improvement programs. These programs support an efficient highway 
infrastructure which in turn is a crucial element supporting the state 
and national economies.
               intelligent transportation systems earmark
    If the Subcommittee earmarks Intelligent Transportation Systems 
(ITS) highway funds in fiscal year 1999, Illinois, along with Wisconsin 
and Indiana, requests an earmark of $6.3 million for projects in the 
Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee (GCM) corridor.
    Over the last four years, the GCM Corridor, along with I-95, 
southern California, and Houston area corridors, has overcome 
significant institutional issues and created a framework for building 
regional ITS interoperability. Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin continue 
to develop joint, coordinated, multimodal efforts that are compliant 
with the ITS National Architecture. These projects improve the 
traveling safety, mobility and productivity of the 10 million people 
who live and conduct business in the 16 counties connecting the 
metropolitan areas of the GCM Corridor. The proposed earmark would 
support these continuing efforts so that the three states can continue 
building a true multimodal, coordinated ITS system.
                      transit discretionary grants
Bus capital
    IDOT, the Regional Transportation Authority (which oversees the 
planning and financing of transit in the six-county northeastern 
Illinois area), the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and PACE (which 
operates suburban bus service) jointly request an earmark of $40 
million in fiscal year 1999 Section 5309 bus capital funds for the CTA, 
PACE and downstate providers. This joint request is a demonstration of 
our mutual interest in securing funding for essential bus capital needs 
throughout the state.
    The joint request will be for funds for two downstate facilities 
and to purchase buses in order to replace over-age vehicles and to 
comply with federal mandates under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
All of the vehicles scheduled for replacement are at the end of their 
useful life; many are well beyond their expected useful life. Downstate 
urbanized areas have 70 buses older than the standard 12-year design 
life and CTA has 380 buses beyond the design life. Illinois transit 
systems need discretionary bus capital funds since regular formula 
funding is inadequate to meet all bus capital needs.
New systems and extensions--MetroLink
    IDOT supports the Bi-State Development Agency's (the bus and light 
rail service operating agency serving the St. Louis region) request for 
an earmark of $64 million in fiscal year 1999 New System funding for 
the MetroLink light rail system which serves the St. Louis region. This 
amount is for the eastward extension in St. Clair County, Illinois from 
East St. Louis to Belleville Area College including final engineering, 
land acquisition, construction and rail car acquisition. The line now 
in service has been a tremendous success and ridership has far exceeded 
projections. The Administration entered into a Full Funding Grant 
Agreement for the extension project in 1996.
New systems and extensions--Metra commuter rail extensions
    IDOT supports Metra's (the commuter rail operating agency serving 
the six-county northeastern Illinois region) request for an earmark of 
$52 million in fiscal year 1999 to continue New System funding for 
design and engineering to upgrade and/or extend service on three 
lines--the North Central, SouthWest, and Union Pacific-West. These 
planned improvements are in areas where significant population and 
development increases have already been experienced and are projected 
to continue well into the 21st century. The projects will improve and/
or extend commuter rail service which will in turn reduce highway 
congestion and contribute to attaining clean air objectives.
                         transit formula grants
Section 5307 urbanized area funds
    IDOT urges the Subcommittee to set the appropriation for fiscal 
year 1999 Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants consistent with 
the authorization set in the final surface transportation 
reauthorization bill. Since we expect the final bill to significantly 
increase transit authorization levels, we would expect the fiscal year 
1999 appropriations for transit to increase similarly.
    Section 5307 is a formula grant program for urbanized areas which 
provides capital and operating assistance for public transportation. In 
Illinois, these formula funds are distributed to 18 urbanized areas 
which provide approximately 560 million passenger trips a year. IDOT 
supports the continuation of operating assistance at least to the 
smaller, under 200,000 population, urbanized areas. A further reduction 
in the current level of federal operating assistance would especially 
harm these areas, likely necessitating further fare increases and 
service cuts. Strong federal funding support for transit service in 
urbanized areas is necessary to enable transit to continue the vital 
role it plays in providing urban transportation service.
Section 5311 rural and small urban formula funds
    IDOT supports fiscal year 1999 funding for the Section 5311 Rural 
and Small Urban program at the final authorization level set in the 
final surface transportation reauthorization bill.
    The Section 5311 program plays a vital role in meeting mobility 
needs in the nation's small cities and rural areas. Adequate federal 
funding assistance for this program is very important to transit 
systems in Illinois. The needs in these areas are growing yet their 
local revenue sources continue to be very limited. In Illinois, such 
systems operate in 41 counties and 7 small cities, carrying 
approximately 2.3 million passengers annually.
                          amtrak appropriation
    IDOT supports a fiscal year 1999 appropriation at least at the 
fiscal year 1998 level of $543 million to fund capital and operating 
expenses.
    Amtrak operates a total of 50 individual trains throughout Illinois 
as part of the nation's passenger rail system, serving approximately 3 
million passengers annually. Of the total, Illinois subsidizes 18 
state-sponsored trains which provide intrastate service in four 
corridors (Chicago to Milwaukee, Quincy, St. Louis, and Carbondale) 
transporting nearly 514,000 passengers in fiscal year 1998. Amtrak 
service in key travel corridors is an important component of Illinois' 
multimodal transportation network and continued federal capital and 
operating support is needed.
        airport improvement program (aip) obligation limitation
    IDOT supports a fiscal year 1999 AIP obligation limitation as close 
as possible to the authorization level to be set in the reauthorization 
bill for aviation programs which will be developed by the Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation Committee. IDOT supports a limitation at 
least at the fiscal year 1998 level of $1.7 billion.
    The AIP program provides federal funding support for airport 
preservation and improvements needed at general aviation and commercial 
airports--which served 605 million people flying on the nation's air 
carriers in 1996. Enplanements are expected to grow to nearly one 
billion by 2008 and airports must make improvements to safely and 
efficiently serve this rapidly growing demand. We believe that the AIP 
program has suffered disproportionate reductions in past appropriation 
bills and that there is a legitimate need to increase the obligation 
limitation.
    The recent underfunding of the AIP program has caused substantial 
problems, particularly for general aviation, reliever, commercial 
service and small primary airports. Larger primary airports have been 
able to more than replace reduced AIP funding with Passenger Facility 
Charge (PFC) revenue, but small airports are not able to generate 
sufficient additional revenue to offset the major reductions in federal 
support. Therefore, adequate AIP funding is especially important for 
these airports.
    This concludes my testimony. I am keenly aware of the pressures you 
face trying to meet demands for increased transportation funding given 
the balanced budget agreement spending constraints. However, an 
adequate and well-maintained transportation system is critical to the 
nation's economic prosperity and future growth. Your recognition of 
that and your support for the nation's transportation needs are much 
appreciated. Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Illinois' 
federal transportation funding concerns.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of the International Council of Aircraft Owner and 
                           Pilot Associations
             iaopa urges u.s. to continue operating loran-c
    Frederick, MD.--The International Council of Aircraft Owner and 
Pilot Associations is urging the U.S. government to continue operating 
the land-based Loran-C navigation system as a back-up to the satellite-
based GPS system.
    ``Loran-C is an important navigation aid for worldwide general 
aviation and aerial work operations,'' said IAOPA President Phil Boyer. 
``While GPS will become the primary worldwide navigation system, Loran 
is still needed as a secondary, back-up system.''
    The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to decommission 
the U.S. Loran-C navigation system in the year 2000. But due to 
pressure from Loran users, Congress ordered DOT to review that 
decision. The technical consulting firm Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. was 
hired to study the technical merits and costs/benefits of extending the 
life of Loran-C.
    In comments for the Booz-Allen study, IAOPA said that Loran-C was 
an important and useful means of navigation in the Americas, the Far 
East and Europe. An estimated 130,000 Loran-C receivers are installed 
in aircraft around the world. Recent advances in receivers and antennas 
have solved many Loran operational shortcomings such as precipitation 
static interference.
    IAOPA said that Loran transmitters were already built and paid for. 
Compared to the costs of an entirely new navigation system, upgrading 
and maintaining the Loran-C system for non-precision instrument 
approaches would be very economical. For example, the entire U.S. Loran 
system could be upgraded for about the same cost as yearly maintenance 
of the U.S. VOR navigation system.
    IAOPA said the Loran-C could also serve as an alternative means for 
transmitting differential GPS (DGPS) correction signals in Europe.
    DGPS improves position accuracy to permit precision instrument 
approaches into many airports. In North America, DGPS signals will be 
broadcast from geostationary satellites as part of the U.S. Federal 
Aviation Administration's Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).
    ``But aviation users worldwide may be reluctant to rely solely on 
satellite-based navigation systems,'' said Boyer. ``Without a 
supplementary system like Loran-C, that reluctance may prevent us from 
realizing the full potential of the Global Navigation Satellite 
System.''
    Noting that some nations are reluctant to depend on a navigation 
system completely controlled by the U.S., IAOPA said that an enhanced 
Loran-C system would allow governments to maintain sovereign control 
over a second navigation system. Several European nations have already 
committed to implementing their own Loran capability--Eurofix--to 
distribute DGPS correction signal.
    ``Loran-C must be viewed as a global system that will benefit many 
different users for some time to come,'' said Boyer. ``We recommend 
that Loran-C be retained as a navigation system within the United 
States and that it also be upgraded and improved to realize its full 
potential as a component of the future world radionavigation system.''
    IAOPA is the international organization representing pilots and 
aircraft owners of 45 nations on international issues. IAOPA represents 
the interests of general aviation before international aviation 
organizations such as the European Union and the International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO).
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of Frank L. Jensen, Jr., President, Helicopter 
                       Association International
    In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed 
decommissioning of Loran-C in the year 2000, the following is provided 
for your consideration.
    The Helicopter Association International (HAI) is the professional 
trade association of more than 1,400 member organizations, which 
operate, manufacture or otherwise support the civil helicopter 
industry. HAI's members operate over 4,000 civil helicopters, safely 
flying more than two million hours each year. Since 1948, HAI has been 
dedicated to promoting the helicopter as a safe and effective method of 
transportation, and to the advancement of the civil helicopter 
industry.
    HAI and its members consider Loran-C as a crucial element of the 
total navigation system for aviation. It is generally assumed that the 
Global Positioning System (GPS) will constitute the future primary 
means of navigation. However, GPS is not yet proven, and there are 
doubts as to the timeliness of implementation of GPS and its 
reliability. There is as yet no augmentation system that will provide 
the degree of precision that is essential for aviation users. Instances 
of ships running aground while utilizing GPS serve as indicators that 
GPS is not sufficiently accurate or reliable to provide precision 
navigation information to aircraft.
    Without augmentation, and with this country's system of VOR's and 
ILS's to be dismantled, aircraft will be unable to fly to precision 
minimums. Loran-C is the only currently available technology that can 
readily and cost effectively be adapted to augment GPS to provide the 
precision that is critical to aircraft operations.
    Discontinuance of Loran-C cannot be justified on budgetary grounds. 
Loran-C has an estimated 1.3 million users in the aviation, marine and 
timing communities. The annual cost of operating Loran-C is 
approximately $8 million. With Loran-C extended to Alaska, that cost 
increases to approximately $14 million. This cost is minuscule if 
stated as a cost per user.
    Doctrines of navigation espoused by the U.S. Coast Guard and the 
FAA emphasize the importance of secondary or backup navigation devices 
or systems. Loran-C is the one proven navigation system that is widely 
utilized in the maritime industry and to some extent in aviation. 
Technology currently exists that would enhance Loran-C for wider use in 
aircraft by providing more precise, real-time navigation information. 
Loran-C is a reliable, established and proven navigation system that 
not only would provide a land-based backup to GPS but could also be 
used to enhance GPS. Loran-C will continue to be supported in Europe 
and in Asia. The U.S. aviation and maritime transportation industries 
are global. HAI strongly believes that termination of Loran-C would be 
shortsighted, a false economy and would introduce a significant and 
totally unnecessary dysfunction within our trading community.
    Loran-C is widely supported by its users, in the aviation community 
in general and within the helicopter community particularly. Its 
expanded application to aviation use would be relatively low cost, well 
received, and would provide the margin of safety that redundancy of 
systems provide. In the same context of having two engines, dual 
hydraulics or secondary electrical systems, this nation's 
transportation infrastructure must have redundancy in its navigation 
systems. To assure the safety and well-being of those traveling in the 
air and on the sea, it is vital to support funding for and improvements 
to Loran-C. HAI strongly supports this highly successful, proven and 
cost effective system. Discussions of Loran-C should not be in the 
context of extending it beyond 2000 or to 2015, but rather of extending 
it indefinitely.
    If you have any questions, please contact me or Glenn Rizner, HAI's 
Vice President of Operations, at (703) 683-4646.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Henry M. Ogrodzinski, President and CEO, National 
                Association of State Aviation Officials
    Founded 67 years ago, the National Association of State Aviation 
Officials (NASAO) represents the men and women in state government 
aviation agencies, who serve the public interest in all 50 states, Guam 
and Puerto Rico. These highly skilled professionals are full partners 
with the federal government in the development and maintenance of the 
safest and most efficient aviation system in the world.
    Following early work in Vermont, NASAO began working with the 
Federal Aviation Administration in the early 1980's on the development 
of instrument approach procedures using Loran. The first joint meeting 
of the two governmental partners on this issue was held in Columbus, 
Ohio in February 1985 and was hosted by the Ohio Bureau of Aviation. 
Following that meeting, the ``Loran Planning Work Group'' held 
semiannual workshops until the completion of the mid-continent gap 
project in 1991. When that was in place, eight Loran non-precision 
instrument approaches had been published. Shortly after the 
commissioning, the FAA canceled these eight approaches because to date, 
no manufacturers had produced a TSO approved unit capable of flying the 
approaches.
    Throughout this period, thousands of Loran receivers were purchased 
by civil aviation users because of the remarkable en route capability 
and constant reliability and accuracy that it provides. The TSO'd IFR 
en route Loran units were readily available from a number of 
manufactures along with VFR units. Recognizing the value of this new 
air navigational aid, many aircraft owners purchased units for their 
aircraft and have used them since for both VFR and IFR en route 
operations. The significant rise in use was noted by states which began 
documenting the number of installed units within aircraft based in 
their respective states. In addition, the Wisconsin Bureau of Aviation 
prepared the enclosed comprehensive analysis concerning the adverse 
economic impact that would result for general aviation if Loran were 
shut down.
    With these issues in mind, the state aviation agencies, in support 
of the public interest which they serve including the general aviation 
community, are compelled to advocate the continued operation and future 
development of Loran for aviation use. Even as far back as September 
1994, the membership of our organization expressed its support for 
Loran with the adoption of the enclosed NASAO Resolution in which the 
language urges ``the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and the Congress 
of the United States to ensure that the U.S. operated Loran-C 
navigation system remains in place until the programmed termination in 
2015.'' Loran is a proven and stable land-based navigation system that 
provides full coverage for our country and the adjacent maritime area 
and its continuance into the 21st Century is vital to the success of 
our nation's aviation system.
    Tied directly with the states' support for the continued operation 
of Loran beyond 2000, is the concern for adopting GPS as a sole source 
navigational aid. NASAO is a strong advocate for the development of GPS 
technology. The development of stand-alone GPS approaches has been 
perhaps the greatest single advancement to aerial navigation since the 
development of the instrument landing system (ILS) over a half a 
century ago. We're on the verge of WAAS and LAAS three-dimensional 
approaches which will further revolutionize the aerial navigation 
industry. We are getting closer to obtaining even greater benefits of 
GPS technology as the new millennium approaches.
    Even in light of the existing effective and reliable operation of 
GPS, we can not accept the reliance on a single navigational aid for 
IFR operations. The continued operation of Loran is logical as its a 
time-based area navigation system which uses basically the same 
principals as GPS from a pilots/users standpoint. Having used Loran for 
IFR en route provided many general aviation pilots with excellent 
training for the use of GPS. The strength of signal and national 
coverage of Loran across the continental United States justifies its 
continued operation alone. Loran provides far more coverage across the 
continent then NDB's and VOR's/TACAN's either utilized separately or 
combined. This universal coverage also comes at a fraction of the cost 
of one GPS satellite, or the cost of running the current NDB and VOR/
TACAN system throughout the country.
    In closing, on behalf of the state aviation agencies across the 
country and their customers, NASAO wishes to go on record as strongly 
urging the continued operation of Loran until at least 2015 as called 
for in previous versions of the Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP). 
Furthermore, that FAA continue to evaluate the use of Loran as a 
supplement for GPS as an aerial navigation aid well beyond the year 
2000.
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of Andrew V. Cebula, Vice President, National 
                       Transportation Association
    The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) represents 
aviation businesses nationwide that provide a variety of services at 
our nation's airports that own, operate and service aircraft. The 
nearly 2,000 NATA members serve millions in the traveling public, 
airlines, general aviation and the military through fuel sales, 
maintenance, flight training, aircraft rental and on-demand aircraft 
charter services. NATA is committed to the enhancement of our nation's 
navigation systems through integration of new technologies. However, 
NATA believes that such advancements must occur only with proven 
systems that provide cost effective, improved services and safety 
enhancements.
    Although the rapid progression of satellite navigation and the 
Global Positioning System (GPS) will become a valuable part of 
navigation in the future, NATA is convinced that Loran-C should have a 
continuing role in navigation. Loran-C is a very cost-effective, proven 
and reliable technology that is highly compatible with GPS. Loran 
provides enormous and unique benefits because of its utility to 
aviation, marine, surface, telecommunications and other users. 
Substantial Loran-C user and infrastructure investment has been made 
and should not be lost. NATA joins with other Loran users and 
organizations representing the beneficiaries of Loran technology in 
urging the continued funding of Loran-C until at least 2015 as 
previously called for in the U.S. Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP).
    Aviation requires a highly reliable, precision system navigation 
mix that provides redundancy in the case of unforeseen problems. This 
principle has been a cornerstone of long-standing U.S. transportation 
policy and system safety, capacity and efficiency goals. While the goal 
of decommissioning ground-based navigation systems (VOR/NDB/DME) is 
logical in light of rapidly advancing technology, satellite systems are 
still developmental and very unproven. Loran-C provides a necessary 
aviation safety alternative that works as an augmentation to GPS. It is 
a well-proven technology that can and does support the needs of 
aviation.
    GPS is a valuable tool during en route flight operations; however, 
complex questions remain about its limitations and vulnerabilities. In 
fact, in the recent Report of the President's Commission on Critical 
Infrastructure Protection, titled ``Critical Foundations: Protecting 
America's Infrastructures,'' plain and unequivocal concerns are 
expressed about relying on sole means technology. The report assesses 
the general lack of preparation by the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) and agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to 
deal with ``cyber threats.'' It recommends, among other actions, that 
the Secretary of Transportation: `` * * * Fully evaluate actual and 
potential sources of interference to, and vulnerabilities of, GPS 
before a final decision is reached to eliminate other radionavigation 
and aircraft landing guidance systems * * *.''
    There is no doubt that navigation is moving toward heavier reliance 
on satellite technology, and NATA supports many of these enhancements 
because they have the potential to reduce operations costs and promise 
other benefits. However, it does not make sense prematurely phase out a 
cost-effective, reliable system like Loran-C in which substantial user 
and infrastructure investment has been made. Such a decision could also 
leave the Nation's transportation and communications infrastructure 
vulnerable to disruption in the future.
    The infrastructure to support continuation of Loran is already in 
place. The technology continues to be a cost-effective system that is 
widely utilized in the United States and, in fact, is blossoming 
internationally. Incremental Loran revitalization improvements could 
reduce infrastructure operating costs to less than $10 million 
annually.
    The case for continuation of Loran is clear, whether viewed solely 
from an aviation perspective, where the majority of general aviation 
aircraft are already equipped, or viewed from the broader vantage point 
of other users across the entire U.S. economy--marine, surface, 
telecommunications, power and utility companies, the National Weather 
Service, the military and others.
    Loran-C is most compatible with, and can enhance, satellite 
technology while remaining an independent system. The technology has 
unanimous support of users because of its broad-based utility, 
substantial safety benefits and low operating cost. NATA strongly 
supports steps to enhance and revitalize the Loran infrastructure and 
believes there is a continuing role for Loran as part of the future 
navigation mix until at least 2015 as was previous U.S. policy.
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of Elaine Dickinson, Assistant Vice President, 
        Government Affairs, Boat Owners Association of the U.S.
    As a national association that represents over 500,000 recreational 
boat owners, we have a vital interest in the future of the Loran-C 
radionavigation system. This letter will serve as our comments for the 
DOT Loran-C Study being prepared for a report to the U.S. Congress.
    Loran-C has served the boating community extremely well since the 
1970's with reliable service and affordable receivers. The proposed 
early phase-out of Loran service is of major concern to hundreds of 
thousands of recreational users throughout the U.S. and abroad. With a 
magnitude of civil users estimated to be 1.2 million, 80 percent of 
them marine users, a rapidly expedited shut-down by the federal 
government would severely impact this broad user community.
    When the Global Positioning System was first coming on-line, the 
civil user community was promised in successive Federal Radionavigation 
Plans that Loran would not be phased out until 2015, allowing a safe 
and economical transition period. For federal policy makers to do less 
but could jeopardize the safety of thousands of vessels and aircraft.
    The reasons why we believe it is important to vessel operators to 
have Loran continue for at least another 10-15 years, if not 
indefinitely, are as follows:
  --Magnitude of the User Group.--No other navigation system has so 
        many vessel and aircraft owners depending upon it. Over one 
        million citizens use Loran and this number may be conservative. 
        While GPS receiver sales have clearly grown in recent years, 
        many of those GPS users are using both systems or using Loran 
        as a check on their GPS readings. A drastic change in stated 
        federal policy will create skepticism among this broad user 
        community with regard to any future DOT decisions as well.
  --Reliability.--Even though GPS has gained acceptance as a global 
        navigation system, it has not attained the reliability of 
        Loran, nor is it at the point of serving all needs to be 
        designated as the sole U.S. system for all types of users. Boat 
        owners have complained for years about the government's own 
        policy of ``Selective Availability,'' degrading the civilian 
        GPS signal. Until this policy changes, boat owners have good 
        reason to question the signal they're receiving from GPS. Loran 
        continues to provide 10-meter repeatability which is extremely 
        beneficial to thousands of users to relocate prime fishing 
        areas, underwater wrecks and other important spots. Vessel 
        operators from charterboat captains to sport drivers have 
        hundreds of waypoints recorded on Loran that simply cannot be 
        converted to GPS.
  --Economic impact.--Loran receivers, an American-made product, have 
        been priced low enough to make them affordable to large numbers 
        of the boating public and for a change in government policy to 
        render an estimated half-billion dollars worth of private 
        equipment obsolete is unfair to consumers. In recent years, as 
        many as 90,000 Loran receivers have been sold annually. 
        Contrary to assumptions about boat owners, they are not wealthy 
        and not willing to spend $500 for every new ``toy'' that comes 
        on the market. The investment in navigation equipment is a 
        cautious decision and one that has been based, in part, on 
        long-term policy of DOT not to phase out Loran before 2015.
    To obtain the great accuracy of Differential GPS, to override 
``Selective Availability'', requires an additional expenditures of at 
least $500 to buy a Differential receiver, in addition to a $200 (low-
end) GPS receiver. The lack of consistency in government policy is 
hurting the marine marketplace as consumers are more confused than ever 
over what system to invest in. Many are reluctant to invest in GPS as 
long as SA is on and Differential GPS requires additional cost. The 
fact that DOT has not abided by its own Federal Radionavigation Plans 
adds to the confusion in a significant electronics market.
  --Back-Up.--Is one system wise, from the aspect of public safety as 
        well as national security? For civil and military users to 
        depend only upon one system that is satellite based is short-
        sighted. GPS could be subject to failure, attack, solar 
        disruptions or any host of unforeseen threats. At the very 
        least, Loran provides a land-based back-up that is controlled 
        within our borders where it can be safeguarded and easily 
        repaired or upgraded. GPS should have at least a solid 10-year 
        track record before it becomes our only system.
  --An integrated system.--The Loran infrastructure and performance is 
        proven and relatively efficient to maintain and operate. DOT 
        and DOD should fully explore the potential for an integrated 
        Loran/GPS system where each system's strengths and weaknesses 
        are balanced to the advantage of all users. Costs should be 
        shared within DOT, between the FAA and the Coast Guard, rather 
        than having the Coast Guard bear cost. We believe the Coast 
        Guard's decision to eliminate Loran has been driven mainly by 
        short-term budget and manpower considerations, not long-term 
        navigation goals.
    On behalf of the 12 million recreational boaters in the U.S., we 
appreciate this opportunity to comment and we'll be happy to assist 
with the preparation of the DOT report in any way.
                                 ______
                                 
                       Transit-Related Testimony
  Prepared Statement of William W. Millar, President, American Public 
                          Transit Association
                              introduction
    The American Public Transit Association (APTA) appreciates the 
opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1999 Transportation 
Appropriations bill. On behalf of our 1,100 member organizations we are 
grateful for the Transportation and Related Agencies Subcommittee's 
outstanding work on the fiscal year 1998 Transportation Appropriations 
Act. The $4.84 billion transit funding level, an increase of more than 
10 percent above fiscal year 1997--while not as large as the increase 
granted to highway assistance programs--is a welcome recognition of 
transit's many contributions to a balanced transportation system in 
which all modes work together.
    Across the country transit operators are working diligently to 
serve their customers, to invest in new facilities and services that 
attract new riders, and to make transit part of the fabric of community 
life in rural counties, small towns, and large metropolitan areas. We 
are gratified that our customers have shown their support through 
ridership increases, and that Congress has increased funding for these 
worthwhile endeavors.
    In this regard, we strongly support the transit title of S.1173, 
the Senate Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) 
reauthorization bill. The bill was approved with strong bipartisan 
support and calls for significant increases in transit and highway 
spending. S.1173 would increase funding for the federal transit program 
to $6.8 billion in fiscal year 1999, and the Senate Budget Resolution 
adds about $60 million in fiscal year 1999 to baseline outlays to 
accommodate the increase. In total, the budget resolution increases 
outlays by $2.7 billion over the next five years in order to 
accommodate additional transit spending authorized by the Senate bill. 
We urge the Subcommittee to follow the Senate Budget Resolution's 
guidelines and to fund the transit program as close as possible to the 
$6.8 billion level in fiscal year 1999.
            a year of success and new challenges for transit
    Events of the past year have reaffirmed the importance of the 
federal transit program as an essential part of a balanced, 
comprehensive transportation program:
  --Figures for fiscal year 1997 indicate an increase in ridership 
        nationwide over fiscal year 1996 for every mode of transit. A 
        noteworthy achievement was heavy rail's increase in the third 
        quarter of Calendar Year (CY) 1997, even compared to the third 
        quarter of CY 1996 when Atlanta's MARTA system carried its huge 
        Summer Olympics ridership;
  --Total bus ridership in the U.S. is making a comeback, with 
        increases of 1.71 percent in the fourth quarter of CY 1996, and 
        1.35 percent, 2.51 percent and 3.32 percent in the first, 
        second, and third quarters of CY 1997, respectively. Bus 
        service, in communities large and small, continues to provide 
        essential mobility for millions of Americans;
  --Many bus and rail transit systems created new services or opened 
        new facilities, many with great success in reaching new 
        markets--some close to home. Since its December opening, the 
        MCI Arena has proven to be an economic boon to downtown 
        Washington, D.C., and initial reports indicate that more than 
        half of MCI Arena event patrons use Metro;
  --The July 1997 report titled ``Dollars & Sense: The Economic 
        Benefits of Public Transportation in America'' provided new 
        insights into the many ways that public transit benefits the 
        economy;
  --A second report, ``Commuter Rail: Serving America's Emerging 
        Suburban/Urban Economy,'' detailed the economic impacts of 
        commuter rail investment; and
  --All of us in the transit industry were deeply gratified that Mrs. 
        Rosa L. Parks accepted APTA's first Lifetime Achievement Award 
        in March 1997, in a ceremony at Washington, D.C.'s Union 
        Station. Throughout the past year, many people have mentioned 
        how glad they are that the transit industry has recognized this 
        heroic woman's role in the struggle for civil rights.
                         transit funding needs
    With adequate resources, transit can provide essential mobility to 
millions of Americans every day. We note that annual capital needs 
still far exceed available federal, state, and local funding.
    A recently released U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 
estimates that we need to invest $14 billion each year just to maintain 
and upgrade existing transit conditions. An APTA study found that the 
transit industry's capital funding requirements average $15 billion per 
year over a ten-year period. No matter whose numbers you use, the need 
is there. Over a ten-year period these needs include----
  --$38 billion for new vehicles, including 67,800 buses and 51,400 
        vans;
  --$25 billion for new bus facilities including parking lots for bus 
        passengers;
  --$13 billion to modernize bus facilities and equipment;
  --$23 billion to modernize and rehabilitate existing fixed guideway 
        rail and bus facilities, stations, and maintenance facilities;
  --$46 billion for additional fixed guideway services that respond to 
        new customer demands; and
  --$5 billion to rehabilitate more than 14,900 buses, rail cars, and 
        other vehicles to extend their useful lives.
    APTA firmly supports continuation of a strong federal role in 
setting transportation policy and funding infrastructure investments. 
ISTEA and the annual appropriations measures have supported balanced 
national transportation policies, recognizing that one federal role is 
to ensure that all modes are adequately maintained so they can 
complement each other.
    In addition, in light of these costs and other program initiatives 
of the federal transit program, we ask that appropriate resources be 
made available to fund the critical administrative needs of the Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA).
Federal mandates
    APTA supports the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
(ADA), the Clean Air Act, federal drug and alcohol testing laws, and 
the Clean Water Act. However, the costs of these worthy goals add at 
least $1.5 billion each year to transit capital and operating costs. 
Absent sufficient federal funds to cover these costs, many transit 
systems are forced to sacrifice some existing services.
    As noted in last year's testimony, transit agencies met the January 
27, 1997 compliance deadline to make paratransit service comparable to 
fixed-route service, but their ADA capital and operating costs may be 
as much as $1.4 billion annually for the next several years. The demand 
for ADA paratransit service is expected to grow, and complementary 
paratransit service will still be required even after all fixed-route 
service is fully accessible. The noble vision of ADA must be fulfilled 
with the support of our entire society. The costs of compliance should 
not be placed disproportionately on transit riders, yet that is what 
happens if service is reduced, or fares raised, or plans for expanded 
service canceled, as a consequence of ADA-related expenses.
                    fiscal year 1999 transit funding
    We urge the Subcommittee to build on your successful fiscal year 
1998 efforts and approve the maximum possible funding for the federal 
transit program. We want to commend you for providing a ratio of 
formula to discretionary funding that is closer than previous 
appropriations acts to the ISTEA ratio of $1.36 in formula funds for 
each $1.00 in discretionary funds. APTA urges the Subcommittee, in 
developing its fiscal year 1999 bill, to:
  --Retain the fiscal year 1998 language on preventive maintenance and 
        expanded flexibility for transit systems in urbanized areas 
        (UZA's) with fewer than 200,000 people, which has been 
        enormously helpful to transit agencies dealing with cuts of 
        more than 80 percent in federal operating assistance;
  --Preserve operating assistance at the current level, at least until 
        the authorizing committees have a chance to act on the issue, 
        since even with preventive maintenance the loss of operating 
        assistance has been difficult for some transit agencies;
  --Maintain balance within the federal transit program by funding 
        formula and discretionary programs in a manner consistent with 
        their relative funding shares under ISTEA, and maintain the 
        40:40:20 ratio among the Discretionary program's New Start, 
        Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus/Bus Facility components;
  --Help transit systems fully implement service associated with the 
        Americans with Disabilities Act without compromising existing 
        services by allocating sufficient funding to meet all needs; 
        and
  --Designate funds for the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) 
        and assure that FTA has appropriate resources to fund its 
        administrative needs.
    We believe that federal investments in transportation 
infrastructure should be increased, and that your Subcommittee deserves 
a significantly higher 602(b) allocation. All surface transportation 
programs, including transit, should receive a fair share of any 
increases in the allocation.
Preventive maintenance
    We support the continuation into fiscal year 1999 of the fiscal 
year 1998 Act's language that includes preventive maintenance as an 
allowable capital expenditure under the transit program. Both the House 
and Senate ISTEA reauthorization bills include similar provisions. 
Preventive maintenance is important for preserving and maintaining 
assets and investments. It offers transit agencies important 
flexibility in adjusting to the decrease in federal operating 
assistance. It also helps establish a consistency with the guidelines 
that govern the federal highway and transit programs.
    As APTA testified last year, we do not anticipate a major outlay 
impact from the inclusion of preventive maintenance as a capital 
expenditure. Indeed, several large metropolitan areas, and the transit 
agencies that serve those regions, have chosen to use federal funds 
primarily for capital needs rather than for preventive maintenance, 
further reducing the possibility of a major outlay impact.
    The preventive maintenance language has helped to create a more 
level playing field between the highway and transit programs, since 
highway funds could already be spent on maintenance purposes. Neither 
the FHWA program's expansion of eligibility to include maintenance nor 
the recent expansion in FTA's definition of eligible capital activities 
resulted in a significant change in outlay rates. Based on this 
evidence we believe that the preventive maintenance language does not 
lead to a significant change in the transit program's outlay curve. In 
any case, first-year transit outlays are only about 35 percent of the 
comparable outlay rate for FHWA programs.
Access to jobs
    Last year, APTA's testimony to this Subcommittee stressed that 
transit is vital to the success of welfare reform. As Secretary Slater 
has since noted, transit is the ``to'' in welfare to work. I recently 
wrote to all 50 state governors to emphasize transit's role in welfare 
to work and to urge them to make transit's role known to their social 
services agencies.
    Some 94 percent of welfare recipients who must move into the work 
force do not own cars and must rely on public transit to get to work. 
The cost of commuting to and from work by transit can be as low as 10 
percent of the annual cost to own and operate an automobile. That can 
make a critical difference in an entry-level worker's budget.
    Because most new jobs are in the suburbs, transit operators are 
working to provide special ``reverse commute'' and suburb-to-suburb 
bus, rail and van services to match center city residents with suburban 
jobs. Job access in rural areas is another difficult challenge.
    APTA has created two task forces to deal with aspects of this 
issue. The APTA Jobs Task Force will encourage transit systems and 
businesses to hire welfare recipients. The Access to Jobs Task Force 
will highlight the positive role that transit can play in making 
welfare to work a success, and provide a means to share information on 
successful programs with APTA members and encourage coordination of 
activities by transportation providers, health and human service 
agencies, and private firms. The difficulty of the challenge should not 
be underestimated.
    A recent report entitled, ``Assessment of the Joblinks 
Demonstration Projects: Connecting People to the Workplace and 
Implications for Welfare Reform'' concludes that ``transportation is a 
necessary component in the package of services needed to implement 
welfare-to-work programs.'' It notes that the effectiveness of 
transportation solutions depends on: Availability of jobs at shift 
times that can be served by available drivers and vehicles; 
Availability of workers who can fill these jobs; and Coordination 
between transportation providers, human service agencies, and 
employers.
    We are encouraged that the Department of Labor (DOL) Welfare to 
Work grant program includes transportation as an eligible activity, and 
that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has programs and 
block grants for transportation and other needs. To focus on these 
programs and encourage coordination among the various human service and 
transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, APTA 
testified earlier this year before the House Appropriations Committee's 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee.
    APTA is encouraging transit agencies to collaborate with other 
agencies on applications for these grants. While we view this as an 
opportunity to help meet a critical national need and to expand transit 
ridership, we also want to dispel any impression that transit agencies 
already have the resources to provide welfare-to-work services without 
potentially adverse effects on existing services and customers.
Research programs
    APTA continues to be very supportive of all of the research 
components of the Federal Transit Act. A federal transit research 
program can foster innovation and technology deployment needed to 
improve transit service across the nation and keep American suppliers 
of transit goods and services healthy and vibrant.
    One of ISTEA's small but important milestones was the creation of 
the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), established as a 
counterpart to the Highway Cooperative Research Program. We appreciate 
your Subcommittee's support for TCRP over the years, and we want to 
emphasize that the transit industry strongly supports TCRP as 
established by ISTEA. We are concerned, however, that the fiscal year 
1998 Act changed the traditional policy of earmarking funds for TCRP. 
For fiscal year 1998, we understand that FTA is not in a position to 
fund the program at the fiscal year 1997 level of $8.2 million. To 
prevent this from happening in fiscal year 1999 and to assure the 
viability of a program modeled after the successful National 
Cooperative Highway Research Program, we urge the Subcommittee to 
designate funds for this program at least at the fiscal year 1997 
level.
    TCRP is the first national research program to give the transit 
community a direct role in setting a research agenda. TCRP Reports have 
addressed the problems of greatest concern to transit agencies, 
including such critical issues as rural transit planning and service 
delivery assessment, access to transit for people with disabilities, 
and a wide range of operational, scheduling, maintenance, and other 
issues. There is no other source for these studies; they cannot be 
carried out at the local level. Moreover, they enhance transit service 
providers' ability to help achieve a wide range of federal objectives.
    This investment in research is paying off. Projects to date include 
software for transit risk managers; a study on low-floor light rail 
vehicles, which minimized the risks associated with new rail car 
design; safe operating procedures for alternative fuel vehicles; a 
facilities and equipment management system; standardized light rail 
signing for improved safety; reduced visual impact of overhead wire; 
and transit management information systems. TCRP also funds an 
international transit studies program, which is invaluable in educating 
transit managers about innovations and practices in transit systems 
around the world. And, I might add, lets us tell our story around the 
world, too. In short, TCRP is a small program with a very big payoff.
Safety
    Given the current concern about transportation safety including the 
phenomenon of ``road rage,'' support for transit is important because 
all modes of transit are among the safest forms of transportation in 
terms of accidents per millions of passenger miles. In fact, ``Dollars 
& Sense'' concludes that there are over 190,000 fewer annual deaths, 
injuries, and accidents than would be the case if people who use 
transit made the same trips by personal vehicle. It is important to 
provide individuals with access to safe transit service and to provide 
transit agencies with the resources to maintain their strong safety 
record. I am pleased to note that we are sponsoring jointly with the 
FTA a workshop on fatigue and safety, and we trust that it will lead to 
increased joint efforts on safety issues.
Metropolitan mobility and economic growth
    As mentioned earlier, the release of the ``Dollars & Sense'' Report 
by a coalition of transit-supportive organizations including APTA 
provided additional confirmation of the ways that transit can be an 
effective tool for economic development.
    ``Dollars & Sense'' finds that American taxpayers receive at least 
four dollars back from each dollar of public investment in transit. The 
Report also finds that everyone, not just the transit rider, shares in 
this positive return. The Report discusses four kinds of economic 
benefits of transit:
  --Mobility benefits come from enabling people to participate more 
        effectively in society as producers, consumers, and citizens. 
        This category alone provided an estimated $33.7 billion in 
        benefits to transit riders according to a 1993 study--more than 
        double the $16.2 billion cost of public expenditures on transit 
        in that year.
  --Efficiency benefits reduce the cost and economic impact of vehicle 
        use. As costly as congestion is in terms of lost time and 
        productivity, wasted fuel, and other expenses--more than $50 
        billion per year and rising--without transit, these costs would 
        be another $19+ billion a year higher. Families in transit-
        friendly areas can save hundreds of dollars per year by riding 
        transit instead of driving for some trips, and up to $5,000 per 
        year if the availability of transit allows them to get by with 
        one less car than they would otherwise own.
  --Economic development benefits result when transit encourages and 
        facilitates new development. ``Dollars & Sense'' includes many 
        specific examples from around the country.
  --Economic productivity benefits result when transit improves 
        national economic productivity. Economist David Alan Aschauer 
        has estimated that increased public investments in 
        infrastructure would lead to increases in the Gross National 
        Product and in private investment.
    Sufficient funding for transit promotes efficient use of all 
transportation dollars by subjecting every proposed project to 
available alternatives. From fiscal year 1992 through 1997, local 
officials chose to use about $3.5 billion in flexible federal funding 
for their communities' transit needs. It is estimated that American 
businesses will lose $24.5 billion annually over the next 20 years 
because of traffic congestion. If the federal government fails to 
invest adequately in transit, gridlock and the corresponding losses in 
economic productivity will worsen.
Commuter rail
    Our study on commuter rail released last year--``Commuter Rail--
Serving America's Emerging Suburban/Urban Economy''--quantifies the 
economic benefits that commuter rail in the U.S. generates, not only in 
the regions they serve, but also for the nation. Benefits flow to a 
broad constituency of commuters, taxpayers, businesses, and 
metropolitan areas. Public funding of commuter rail makes these 
benefits possible, providing needed capital investment and drawing 
riders away from more costly forms of transportation. Commuter rail 
uses these funds in a cost-effective manner: per-passenger-mile 
operating expenses have remained stable and farebox recovery rates are 
near 50 percent.
Small town and rural transit
    In the nation's small urbanized areas (UZA's)--those with fewer 
than 200,000 people--and rural counties, transit provides essential 
mobility and access to jobs, social and health services, church, and 
stores. An estimated 30 million non-drivers in rural America depend on 
transit; in some cases its availability allows the elderly to stay in 
the homes they cherish and out of more expensive nursing homes. A soon 
to be published report from the Transportation Research Board will show 
that $3 is returned for every $1 of federal investment in rural 
transit. APTA supports proposals to increase small UZA and rural 
transit funding. We believe that all federal assistance to these areas 
should be available for capital or operating needs, so that transit 
operators in these communities will have the maximum flexibility to 
meet local needs. We appreciate the Subcommittee's support for the 
fiscal year 1998 Act's language on this point, which is similar to 
provisions in the House and Senate reauthorization proposals.
    The Congressional Appropriations Committees have done a commendable 
job of allocating the funds for these programs, which help meet 
important large-scale, long-term needs, including bus capital 
requirements, that are not easily addressed through the formula 
program. The existing program structure is right for the transit 
industry and our customers.
                               conclusion
    In closing, we ask that the federal transit appropriations for 
fiscal year 1999 build on the success of this year's bill by----
  --Providing the highest levels of funding possible to meet transit's 
        critical needs as specified in the Senate Budget Resolution;
  -- Retaining the current act's language on preventive maintenance and 
        flexibility for smaller areas;
  --Designating funds for the continuation of the small but useful 
        Transit Cooperative Research Program; and
  --Assuring that FTA has adequate funding to carry out the duties that 
        Congress has assigned it.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of Scott Lansing, Executive Director, Chatham Area 
                           Transit Authority
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 
Chatham Area Transit Authority (CAT), I appreciate the opportunity to 
present my statement in the hearing record for Outside Witnesses.
    First, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the funds 
provided for the past two years for our transit needs. While the House 
of Representatives provided the full amount ($8,000,000) of CAT's 
funding needs for the Downtown Transfer Center and Intermodal 
Circulator, the result through the Conference Agreement was $4,000,000. 
CAT officials respectfully request that the balance of the needed 
funding, $4,000,000, be provided in the Fiscal year 1999 Transportation 
Appropriations Bill.
    CAT will begin obligation provided in prior year appropriations for 
this project before September 30, 1998.
    For fiscal year 1999, CAT is requesting $9.8 million for: (1) 
Completion of funding for the Downtown Transfer Center ($4,000,000); 
and (2) Desperately needed bus replacement funds ($5.8 million). Each 
component is discussed below.
                        downtown transfer center
    The Downtown Multimodal Center will be located on a 35,000 square 
foot tract of land near the Civic Center. The facility will also stand 
at one of the gateways to the historic district, and offer improved 
service to the community through passenger waiting areas, office space, 
parking and other features to enhance travel, work and living 
conditions in the downtown area.
    The donation of County owned land will be used as an in-kind cost-
share match. The total cost of $11 million lacks the essential $4 
million in Federal funding.
    CAT requests that the Senate provide the $4 million lost last year. 
Fiscal year 1999 funding of $4 million is critical for the completion 
of this project.
                            bus replacement
    Currently half of CAT's bus fleet have accumulated over 500,000 
miles per vehicle. This puts these 33 buses at the end of their useful 
and designed life. The total funding needed to replace these buses is 
$10 million. CAT is seeking $5.8 million of the total in fiscal year 
1999.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present CAT's needs 
before your Subcommittee. CAT's Board and I thank you for your efforts 
on CAT's behalf. We earnestly and sincerely request that you consider 
carefully CAT's defensible and justifiable request for $9.8 million 
from the Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of Norma Stanton, Chairman, Dallas Area Rapid 
                       Transit Board of Directors
                              introduction
    My name is Norma Stanton, and I am Chairman of the Dallas Area 
Rapid Transit (DART) Board of Directors. It is indeed a pleasure to 
present this written testimony in support of DART's fiscal year 1999 
appropriation request of $50 million for the North Central Light Rail 
Transit (LRT) Extension and $10 million for the replacement of transit 
buses.
                         appropriation request
    I am pleased to submit for consideration, the DART fiscal year 1999 
``New Start'' discretionary funding request of $50 million and $10 
million from the ``Bus'' discretionary category. The New Start funds 
will be dedicated to the North Central LRT Extension of the 20-mile 
DART LRT Starter System (see attached map). The funds will be used for 
light rail vehicles, real estate and construction. The North Central 
LRT Extension construction is scheduled to begin in October, 1998.
    The 12-mile North Central LRT Extension is a key element of DART's 
Program of Rail Projects being requested for authorization in the new 
ISTEA legislation. This $1.18 billion Program of Rail Projects (North 
Central, Northeast, Northwest, and Southeast Corridors) will be funded 
with $795 million of local funds and a $383 million federal 
authorization request. The local funds represent 67 percent of the 
total project cost. This continues DART's philosophy of providing a 
substantial local overmatch, as was done on the LRT Starter System.
    With respect to the bus request, DART has committed approximately 
$144 million of Formula and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds and 
$31 million of local match to replace 14-18 year old buses over the 
next five years. In addition to these resources, DART requests $10 
million in funding of current and future orders totaling 633 vehicles, 
which includes 200 powered by natural gas. The $10 million would fund 
approximately 35 vehicles.
    The table below provides information on previous appropriations and 
the current request.

                 FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal
                                                      Prior    year 1999
                                                      years     request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central Light Rail Transit Extension: Light        27.5         50
 Rail Vehicles, Construction and Real Estate......
Replace 35 Transit Buses..........................  .........         10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         major accomplishments
    DART operates a 20-mile light rail transit system and a 10-mile 
commuter line between Dallas and Irving. In addition to the rail 
services, DART operates a variety of transportation alternatives 
including high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV), 130 fixed bus routes, 
paratransit services for the mobility impaired, rideshare programs and 
corporate trip-reduction programs.
    With the introduction of rail and expanded HOV services, total 
annual ridership on all DART services rose dramatically from 48.5 
million in fiscal year 1996 to 69.9 million in fiscal year 1997. In 
recognition of these new services and the agency's major 
accomplishments, the American Public Transit Association has named DART 
its Transit Agency of the Year.
                         exceeding expectations
    DART's new rail services are generating ridership well beyond 
initial projections, with more than 35,000 passengers per day. DART 
rail is generating extensive economic development around stations and 
along rail corridors as it increases mobility choices for workers. 
Consequently, business and community leaders are calling for the agency 
to accelerate its rail expansion commitments. The citizens of North 
Texas are eager for DART to complete these major transportation 
projects in a timely fashion.
    With your support, DART will be able to further improve the 
transportation options for North Texas and help the region to remain a 
vibrant area to live and work. You may rest assured that we will 
continue to work diligently to get these projects funded, built within 
budget and in operation on schedule.
    Beginning later this year and through 2003, the North Central and 
Northeast LRT lines will be under construction. The table below depicts 
the current status and implementation schedule.

                                                    PROGRAM OF RAIL PROJECTS--IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Open for revenue
                Line                           MIS               PE/EIS or EA            Final design           Start construction          service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central.......................  Completed June 1994.  Completed April 1997..  April 1997-Jan. 2000    Oct. 1998 (Staged).......     2001/2002/2003
                                                                                     (Staged).
Northeast...........................  Completed Nov. 1995.  Completed Dec. 1996     Feb. 1997-June 1999     August 1998 (Staged).....          2001/2002
                                                             (EA).                   (Staged).
Southeast...........................  Feb. 1998-Late 1999.  Late 1999-Mid 2001....  Mid 2001-2004 (Staged)  2003 (Staged)............          2005/2008
Northwest...........................  Feb. 1998-Late 1999.  Early 2000-Late 2002..  Late 2002-2005          2004 (Staged)............          2006/2007
                                                                                     (Staged).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              miles to go
    DART's Transit System Plan calls for the development of 58 miles of 
light rail, 37 miles of commuter rail, and 98 miles of high occupancy 
vehicle lanes. The fiscal year 1997 Financial Plan projects the sources 
and uses of funds for DART's projects through the next 20 years. The 
Financial Plan projects $6.1 billion in locally funded operating 
expenses and $5.6 billion in capital costs. Federal funding accounts 
for only 19 percent of capital investments and 9 percent of overall 
expenditures. This significant local commitment by DART is shown 
graphically on the next page.
                           regional mobility
    DART plays a significant role in meeting the challenging regional 
mobility needs. The Program of Rail Projects is contained in the 
approved North Central Texas Council of Governments' ``Mobility 2020: 
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan'' and is also programmed in the 
Regional Transportation Improvement Program for Discretionary funding. 
DART's rail projects relate directly to one of the more important 
Mobility 2020 Goals: ``Develop a balanced, efficient and dependable 
multimodal transportation system which reduces demand for single 
occupant vehicle travel.''
    The entire DART rail system is contained in the Mobility 2020 Plan 
utilizing local and discretionary funds. The Metropolitan 
Transportation Plan has a $3.0 billion rail system component which 
complements the $16 billion programmed for regional congestion 
management and highway improvements.
    DART's rail program is an integral part of the regional, multimodal 
transportation system of light rail, commuter rail, HOV, and roadway 
improvements. Elements of the LRT Starter System are also a 
Transportation Control Measure for meeting air quality standards in 
this ozone non-attainment area.
    The North Central Texas Council of Governments estimates in its 
2020 Mobility Plan that the North Central light rail transit extension 
to Plano will carry an additional 35,000 trips per day. If those same 
35,000 additional trips were made in single occupant vehicles, three 
more lanes would be needed during peak periods to have the capacity to 
handle the additional traffic.
    The Dallas-Fort Worth area is growing at a tremendous rate, it is 
estimated that the region's population will be nearly 5 million people 
by the year 2000. In fact, in 1996 the region gained an additional 
114,00 residents--a population equivalent of two DART member cities--
Carrollton and Farmers Branch. This growth has created a greater need 
for transportation improvements, and DART is planning and operating the 
needed mobility services.
    DART has met the challenge of providing a multimodal system for its 
customers. Its services include bus, light rail, commuter rail, 
paratransit, and HOV lanes. The citizens have in turn responded by not 
only riding the system but by supporting DART's efforts at the polls 
and through continued support as demonstrated by more than 20 
resolutions passed by member city Councils and chambers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.001

                               conclusion
    The citizens of the DART Service Area have chosen to invest a 
substantial amount of their sales tax to implement the Transit System 
Plan. The funding requests made here are realistic and have been taken 
from the Board-approved DART Financial Plan, which has also been 
examined by many of the finance directors of DART's member cities.
    Costs are based on a specific future schedule of project 
implementation, as was done on the Light Rail Transit Starter System. 
DART has shown that it can capably manage a large, multi-million dollar 
project, keep it on schedule and within budget. Any delay in funding 
will lengthen the project and eventually increase costs to the 
taxpayers.
    We urge your endorsement of DART's fiscal year 1999 funding request 
totaling $60 million, in order to keep the momentum we have 
collectively gained. DART is planning, building, and operating 
transportation services now for the future mobility of the region.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.002

                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Julie M. Austin, Executive Director, Foothill 
                        Transit, West Covina, CA
    Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Julie Austin, 
and I am the Executive Director of Foothill Transit (Foothill) in West 
Covina, California.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit testimony to this 
subcommittee. Foothill's funding request for $2.5 million in Section 3 
bus capital discretionary funding for the construction of our second 
bus facility in the western end of California's San Gabriel Valley will 
enable us to complete both of our required bus operations and 
maintenance facilities in a cost-efficient manner. Mr. Chairman, I 
recognize the difficult tasks before this Subcommittee and commend your 
leadership in determining the allocation of available transportation 
resources during this critical congressional budget period. We are very 
appreciative of the support provided to Foothill by this committee over 
the past three years. Should the committee give favorable consideration 
to our request for fiscal year 1999, we want to assure you that we are 
ready to obligate the funds immediately and quickly complete this 
project.
    With the $23.5 million in Section 3 discretionary funding approved 
over the past three years, we were able to complete our first facility 
in Pomona within a fast-track nine-month construction schedule, and it 
was completed within budget. In fact, FTA's Administrator for Region 
IX, Leslie Rogers, spoke at the facility's dedication ceremonies and 
commented that Foothill was true to their word--the federal money was 
used to construct our Pomona facility within the promised nine-month, 
fast-track schedule, and it was completed within budget. The federal 
investment in this project is expected to result in cost savings of $80 
million over the life of these two facilities.
    Foothill Transit started as an experiment and has evolved into a 
national model for public/private partnerships, providing cost 
effective, high quality transit service. This request for bus capital 
discretionary funds is a unique and excellent example of how to put the 
public/private concept into practice. We believe you will agree from 
the audited information attached that Foothill is one of the best 
investments of taxpayer dollars in these times of limited funds.
    Foothill has established a reputation of providing outstanding 
customer service. In five separate customer surveys, Foothill Transit 
drivers have consistently received ratings above average or greater by 
more than 80 percent of our customers. Customers also rate Foothill 
Transit buses very highly on their cleanliness, comfort and graffiti-
free appearance.
                                history
    The Foothill Transit Zone was created in 1987 as a public/private 
partnership. It is governed by an elected board comprised of mayors and 
councilmembers representing the 21 cities and appointees from the 
County of Los Angeles who are members of a Joint Exercise of Powers 
Authority. It provides public transit services over a 327 square-mile 
service area. Foothill Transit was initially established as a three-
year experiment to operate 20 bus lines at least 25 percent cheaper 
than the Southern California Rapid Transit District (now MTA), with 
those savings to be passed on to the community through more service 
and/or lower fares. A three-year evaluation conducted by Ernst & Young 
showed that Foothill's public/private arrangement resulted in cost 
savings of 43 percent per revenue hour over the previous provider. 
Foothill has established itself as a success despite various court 
challenges. Providing top quality, cost-effective service to its 
customers, Foothill charged only 85 cents as a base fare until July 1, 
1997--the same fare charged by the RTD in 1986. The fare schedule was 
restructured in 1997 to raise the base fare by a nickel, reduce the 
complicated zone structure, and actually reduce fares for Metrocard 
users. Rather than discouraging customers, this restructuring resulted 
in a 10 percent increase in ridership during the first six months of 
implementation. Forty percent of Foothill's operating costs are covered 
by farebox revenues (state law only requires a 20 percent ratio of fare 
revenues to operating costs).
    Foothill has no employees. All management and operation of Foothill 
Transit service is provided through competitive procurement practices. 
The Foothill Executive Board has retained my employer, Forsythe & 
Associates, Inc., to provide the day-to-day management and 
administration of the agency. The management contractor oversees the 
maintenance and operation contractors to ensure adherence to Foothill 
Transit's strict quality standards.
    Using this new approach to delivering transit services, Foothill 
Transit has been able to:
  --Keep operating costs low while putting 68 percent more buses on the 
        street;
  --Increase revenue generated from the farebox by 74 percent;
  --Increase service hours by 89 percent; and
  --Increase ridership by 61 percent.
    Foothill Transit uses NO federal operating assistance. All 
operating funds were provided through bus fares and local sales tax 
until July 1, 1996, when Foothill Transit finally became eligible for 
state operating subsidies allocated to other transit operators. 
Proposition A and Proposition C are each a one half cent sales tax 
levied in Los Angeles County to support public transit. When the 
Foothill ``experiment'' began, no capital funds were made available to 
purchase buses. Therefore, buses were financed using innovative long-
term financing over the 12-year life of the vehicles. Until recently, 
Foothill has paid for all of its buses out of its operating funds. 
Since fiscal year 1989, Foothill Transit has paid over $26.7 million in 
bus lease payments out of local operating dollars. Foothill did not 
receive any Section 9 capital funds to pay a portion of its annual bus 
lease payments until fiscal year 1995.
                     why this bus capital request?
    An independent Facility Feasibility Analysis completed in 1995 
indicated that, if the requested funding is provided, Foothill Transit 
can achieve over $80 million in savings over the life of the two 
facilities. This savings will be used to implement Foothill Transit's 
Strategic Master Plan, which calls for a 50 percent increase in 
service, and the development of eight timed transfer centers to ease 
transit connections for our customers. Foothill is also working on 
redesigning its bus stops to make them more attractive for the 
customer, the community, and to provide an economic stimulus in our 
communities.
    Although we have completed our first facility in Pomona, Foothill's 
El Monte bus facility is a leased facility provided by our contractors. 
This facility is not optimally sized for either the current and 
projected fleet. Ownership of a new facility with sufficient capacity 
will encourage competition and allow smaller contractors to provide 
service under contract to Foothill Transit.
    Approval of this federal Section 3 bus capital appropriation for 
construction of Foothill's second bus facility will have the following 
impacts:
  --Properly located facilities reduce deadhead mileage, maximize 
        vehicle life, and provide significant operating savings;
  --Facilities owned by Foothill Transit eliminate the recurring costs 
        with each renewal of the service contract for leasehold 
        improvements, depreciation, and the purchase of major equipment 
        that has a life cycle greater than the 3-year life of the 
        service contract;
  --Facilities provided by Foothill also provides a more level playing 
        field for operating contractors, thereby stimulating greater 
        competition and achieving additional savings;
  --Ownership provides the agency the opportunity to construct an 
        alternative fueling facility on the site, reducing emissions in 
        a region that ranks as one of the worst areas for air quality 
        in the country;
  --Facility ownership enhances the ability of the agency to ensure 
        continued operation of its service should a contractor default; 
        and
  --Proper placement of facilities is secured in the rapidly developing 
        San Gabriel Valley (the fastest growing region in Los Angeles 
        County).
                               conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, Foothill Transit has a ready-to-go project and can 
immediately obligate these funds. Foothill Transit has:
  --Initiated an environmental study;
  --Awarded contracts for architectural and construction management 
        services;
  --Obtained a short-term loan from the Metropolitan Transportation 
        Authority to allow us to acquire a site; and
  --Identified a proposed site for the second facility.
    Appropriation of funds for this innovative project will allow 
Foothill Transit to meet its commitment to our customers as outlined in 
our Strategic Master Plan. Also, service will continue to be expanded 
and enhanced to meet the demand for increased mobility throughout the 
rapidly growing San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys.
    These funds will provide a significant contribution to continue the 
national model that has already been established to maximize the use of 
public funds.
    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Please note the attached 
charts and tables that illustrate Foothill Transit's success. Thank you 
for this opportunity and your consideration of our request. Please feel 
free to contact me if we can be of any assistance.

                                                                                        FOOTHILL TRANSIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Actual change               RTD and MTA performance indicators--    If RTD had kept the Foothill lines    Foothill transit advantage--Foothill
                                     ---------------------------------------    RTD/MTA total system performance   ---------------------------------------            compared to MTA
                                                                                                                                                          --------------------------------------
                                                                            ---------------------------------------                RTD/MTA
                                       RTD in 1986   Foothill in   Percent                                 System    RTD in 1986   percent     Best case     Best case    Foothill in   Foothill
                                                        1997        change    RTD system    MTA system    percent                   change    MTA in 1997   MTA in 1996      1997      advantage
                                                                              in 1986 \1\     in 1997      change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       COMPARATIVE REPORT CARD
 
Vehicle service hours...............       285,859       539,044      88.6      6,864,141     5,916,159     (13.8)       285,859     (13.8)       246.410       246,410       539.044     118.8
Boardings...........................     9,453,027    15,249,854      61.3    445,222,973   342,702,821     (23.0)     9,453,027     (23.0)     7,278,831     7,278,831    15,249,854     109.5
Operating cost......................   $24,177,583   $29,976,494      24.0   $460,222,417  $598,343,775      30.0    $24,177,583      30.0    $31,430,858   $31,430,858   $29,976,494      (4.6)
Farebox revenue.....................    $6,853,411   $11,895,660      73.6   $189,146,589  $207,610,383       9.8     $6,853,411       9.8     $7,525,045    $7,525,045   $11,895,660      58.1
                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy required....................   $17,324,172   $18,080,834       4.4   $271,075,828  $390,733,392      44.1    $17,324,172      38.0    $23,905,813   $23,905,813   $18,080,834     (24.4)
                                     ===========================================================================================================================================================
Peak buses..........................           127           213      67.7          1,873         1,606     (14.3)           127     (14.3)           109           109           213      95.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Actual change               RTD and MTA performance indicators--    If RTD had kept the Foothill lines    Foothill transit advantage--Foothill
                                     ---------------------------------------    RTD/MTA total system performance   ---------------------------------------            compared to MTA
                                                                                                                                                          --------------------------------------
                                                                            ---------------------------------------                RTD/MTA
                                       RTD in 1986   Foothill in   Percent                                 System    RTD in 1986   percent     Best case     Best case    Foothill in   Foothill
                                                        1997        change    RTD system    MTA system    percent                   change    MTA in 1997   MTA in 1997      1997      advantage
                                                                              in 1986 \1\     in 1996      change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         FOOTHILL ADVANTAGE
 
Cost/boarding.......................         $2.56         $1.97     (23.1)         $1.03         $1.75      68.9          $2.56      68.9          $4.32         $4.32         $1.97     (54.5)
Revenue/boarding....................          $.72          $.78       7.6           $.42          $.61      42.6           $.72      42.6          $1.03         $1.03          $.78     (24.5)
Subsidy/boarding....................         $1.83         $1.19     (35.3)          $.61         $1.14      87.3          $1.83      87.3          $3.28         $3.28         $1.19     (63.9)
Farebox ratio (percent).............          28.3          39.7      40.0           41.1          34.7     (15.6)          28.3     (15.6)          23.9          23.9          39.7      65.8
Boardings/hour......................          33.1          28.3     (14.4)          64.9          57.9     (10.7)          33.1     (10.7)          29.5          29.5          28.3      (4.2)
Cost/hour...........................        $84.58        $55.61     (34.3)        $67.05       $101.14      50.8         $84.58      50.8        $127.55       $127.55        $55.61     (56.4)
Subsidy/hour........................        $60.60        $33.54     (44.7)        $39.49        $66.95      67.2         $60.60      67.2         $97.02        $97.02        $33.54     (65.4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes Foothill lines, for fair comparison.
 
Note: Applying the MTA system data to the lines Foothill Transit acquired provides the Best Case operation of these lines by the MTA. This assumes continued operation of the six lines which
  RTD announced it would drop, and that these lines would have performed the same as all other RTD/MTA lines.
 
Source: MTA TPM form for fiscal year 1996 (excluding TSE/BDOF).

    Prepared Statement of Perry J. Maull, Transit Director, City of 
                Gainesville, FL, Regional Transit System
    I would like to thank Chairman Shelby and the Members of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for the opportunity to 
appear before you to request an earmark of bus discretionary funds in 
the amount of $8,750,000 to fund the acquisition of 25 new low-floor 
buses and related equipment. These buses will enable the City of 
Gainesville, in cooperation with our partners, Alachua County, the 
Florida Department of Transportation, and the University of Florida, to 
dramatically enhance bus service to the University of Florida campus.
    I realize your time is very limited, but I would like to highlight 
why Gainesville needs this extraordinary allocation of discretionary 
capital funds for acquisition of 25 expansion buses.
    In December, 1996, the University of Florida's Presidential Task 
Force on Transportation and Parking made its recommendations for a 
major change in how students, faculty, and staff commuted to campus. In 
the past, the 42,000 students and another 16,000 faculty and staff have 
relied on their personal automobiles to get to campus. Parking has been 
relatively plentiful and cheap. However, as the University of Florida 
grows to some 60,000 students and a significant increase in faculty and 
staff to support those students. The Presidential Task Force 
recommended that parking availability be constrained and that parking 
price be increased in the future. To enable a policy of limited parking 
and increasing its cost to work a major expansion of public transit 
service to the University of Florida campus. The Presidential Task 
Force recommended that transit routes serving the campus be enhanced 
with 10 minute service, requiring the addition of some 25 buses on six 
different routes.
    In March, 1997, the students at the University of Florida 
authorized by referendum that up to a $1.00 per credit hour fee be 
imposed on themselves for support of public transit services. In return 
for all 42,000 students paying this fee, each student would have 
unlimited access to the City of Gainesville's Regional Transit System. 
A student public transit fee will be implemented for the Fall Semester 
of 1998. The Florida Department of Transportation has pledged to match 
these student fees with service demonstration funds over the next two 
years.
    Working with our partners, we have already been able to implement 
enhanced bus service, utilizing surplus buses acquired from other 
Florida transit systems. More buses will be added this fall when the 
student fee allows all students access to the bus system by merely 
showing their student ID's. Ridership is up dramatically over last 
year. In fact, on Wednesday, January 14, 1998, we had a record-breaking 
daily passenger boarding of 17,549. Never before has RTS carried as 
many passengers as on that day. Average daily ridership is up some 
4,000 per day, and this is before the students have unlimited access to 
the bus service.
    Your allocation of bus discretionary capital funds to Gainesville 
will be helping an experiment, already underway and showing much early 
promise, to enhance to quality of life for our community and to show 
the State of Florida, and the nation, that public transit can play an 
integral part in the transportation system.
    Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of Father William L. George, S.J., Father T. Byron 
    Collins, S.J., Special Assistants to the President, Georgetown 
               University and Rev. Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J.
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are Father William L. 
George, S.J., and Father T. Byron Collins, S.J., Special Assistants to 
the President of Georgetown University, the Reverend Leo J. O'Donovan, 
S.J. We appreciate this opportunity to submit this testimony to the 
Subcommittee on the 40-Foot, Fuel Cell Powered Transit Bus 
Commercialization Program.
    The Federal Transit Administration continues to support the Fuel 
Cell Transit Bus Commercialization Program within its existing Research 
and Development budget. Support provided by this subcommittee, coupled 
with the money supplied by the Department of Defense, has kept the U.S. 
in the forefront in bringing transportation Fuel Cells to the 
marketplace. These efforts have produced this nation's only viable 
electric vehicles powered by Fuel Cell power. We would like to thank 
the Committee for their continuing support of the Fuel Cell bus program 
as a means to a cleaner environment and as a way to reduce this 
country's dependence on petroleum fuels.
    In fiscal year 1999, we identify a requirement of $12.0 million to 
facilitate the transition of technology from test vehicles to actual 
transit operations which is so necessary to complete the 
commercialization process. This level of funding accommodates the 
development of two additional Fuel Cells from the competing domestic 
vendors, fabrication of the electric drive trains, and purchase and 
integration of the next two Fuel Cell buses. To truly effect a 
transition to operations, it is imperative that these Fuel Cell buses 
be placed in the hands of operators. Only in this manner can we obtain 
widespread user and rider acceptance to spur the demand for this safe, 
clean technology. The Administration's request of $4.0 million for this 
program is not sufficient to do even a minimally successful program.
    Although transit buses emit only a small fraction of the pollutants 
in the world, success in this application will accelerate the 
introduction of Fuel Cells for trucks, automobiles and military 
vehicles. This is the big environmental payoff for Fuel Cell 
technology. The Fuel Cell Bus Commercialization Program can be the 
catalyst to accelerate the introduction of Fuel Cell powered cars. We 
don't have to wait ten years to see Fuel Cell vehicles on the road, the 
transit buses can go into commercial use in the heart of our largest 
cities within the next three years.
    Great progress has been made to date. The world's first operational 
transit bus Fuel Cell power plant capable of running on a liquid fuel 
has been built and tested. The bus and electric drive train are 
complete; the parts are coming together now into a complete electric 
vehicle fully responsive to the industry's needs. This bus will be on 
display at the American Public Transit Association trade show in 
Phoenix this May.
    Georgetown has consistently stressed liquid fuel as the only energy 
source that can provide the range and refueling convenience necessary 
for Fuel Cell bus commercialization in the foreseeable future. Others 
are now following our lead. This first, commercially-viable Fuel Cell 
bus will be a true showcase of the practical application of this 
exciting technology. Design of a second type of Fuel Cell has also been 
complete and the first unit should be ready to go into a bus by the end 
of this year.
    These significant achievements resulted from the efforts of a 
nationwide team of industry experts. Georgetown University administers 
these activities drawing upon fourteen years experience with Fuel Cell 
buses. However, the hardware is developed across the country. The Fuel 
Cells are produced in Connecticut and California, the electric drive 
train is made in New York, the bus is fabricated and integrated in New 
Mexico, and system integration is led from McLean, Virginia. Other 
components are made throughout the nation. The goal of the FTA Grant is 
to make industry ready to commercialize the technology. Georgetown has 
built the team to make that happen.
    We could have accomplished more. Fiscal year 1998 funds were less 
than half of what was requested. Priorities had to be established which 
slowed progress. A second Fuel Cell bus will have to await future 
funding and other efforts to reach commercial success have been 
postponed. The world is not waiting. Fuel Cell technology was little 
known outside of the space community when we first came to you to 
initiate the program. Your foresight has stimulated a world-wide effort 
to capitalize on the potential of Fuel Cells for automotive 
applications. Europe and Japan are pouring major resources to bring the 
technology to the marketplace. Fuel Cell powered automobiles are 
projected to be available within six years. The first vehicles my be of 
Japanese or German origin. This nation had a clear lead in the 
technology just a few years ago; we can not allow it to wane. The FTA 
program is the only U.S. funded effort that can produce operating 
vehicles in the near term. These Fuel Cell buses will spur the 
introduction of automotive Fuel Cells.
    Georgetown is confident that the technology is truly ready for 
commercialization. However, it is not feasible to commercialize a 
product with only one of each type of vehicle. We must transition the 
technology to operations. This is achieved be getting transit buses 
into the hands of the operators to permit them to experience the 
advantages of the technology and identify any necessary improvements. 
Multiple vehicles are absolutely essential to prove technology 
readiness. The program that we recommend will help assure U.S. Fuel 
Cell technology leadership. We prayerfully ask for your continuing 
assistance to put this vital technology into the hands of the American 
people.
                                 ______
                                 
   Prepared Statement of Commissioner Peter McLaughlin, Vice Chair, 
   Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, Minneapolis, MN, and 
         Chair, Twin Cities Metropolitan LRT Joint Powers Board
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to present our views to the Subcommittee. I would ask that 
this testimony be made a part of the official record regarding the 
fiscal year 1999 federal appropriations request for the U.S. Department 
of Transportation.
    This request is for the next increment of funding for fiscal year 
1999 for the Twin Cities Transitways proposal which centers around the 
Hiawatha Avenue Transitway. This request stems from a year of hard 
work, intense discussion, growing excitement and a long-awaited 
commitment by the State Legislature and the Governor to provide the 
local match required to advance this project. The Twin Cities 
Transitways proposal includes the Hiawatha, Riverview and Northstar 
Corridors. This program of projects ties the region together by 
connecting the major economic centers through the development of an 
integrated transportation system.
    The funding we are requesting for fiscal year 1999 is as follows:
  --1. Hiawatha Avenue Corridor from downtown Minneapolis to the 
        Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and the Mall 
        of America;
  --2. Riverview Transit Corridor from the eastside of St. Paul to MSP 
        and the Mall of America; and
  --3. Northstar Transitway Commuter Rail/Corridor from downtown 
        Minneapolis through Anoka County and on to St. Cloud, 
        Minnesota.
    Please see the attached map as a reference.
                               objectives
    The Twin Cities metropolitan area population is now 2.6 million. It 
is the 15th largest metropolitan area and one of a very few that 
depends upon an all bus transit system. Until recently, the Twin Cities 
have managed to escape the problems of the larger older urban areas. 
Now, however, we are seeing the adverse effects of congestion, 
dispersal of manufacturing jobs to suburban locations and declining 
neighborhoods.
    Congestion levels in the Twin Cities are increasing dramatically 
and are affecting the mobility of its residents. The number of trips on 
the regional transportation system is increasing by four percent per 
year. Auto occupancy rates have fallen to 1.12 persons per vehicle, the 
lowest level since record keeping began. Consequently, the number of 
miles of congested freeways has tripled in the last decade and 
congestion is expected to increase another 35 percent by the year 2000. 
At the same time, transit use over the past ten years, as in most other 
cities with all bus fleets, has fallen dramatically.
    The Twin Cities cannot afford to build its way out of congestion. 
Adding roadway capacity to accommodate additional single-occupant 
vehicle trips results in an escalating spiral of vehicular demand, 
feeding into the very problem it tries to solve. Increased traffic 
results in additional pollution, including vehicle emissions, adding to 
mitigation and clean-up costs. Increased travel time results in lowered 
productivity in the delivery of goods and services. Land use issues are 
magnified, as the demand for public systems, including transportation, 
water and sewer and other utilities spread to areas farther out, 
draining resources from more densely developed areas where they are 
more cost effective to provide.
                     unity at state and local level
    For the first time in history, there is broad State and local 
support of the Twin Cities Transitway Project. This show of unity has 
been translated into a State capital commitment approved by the 1998 
State Legislature and signed by Governor Arne Carlson of:
  --$40 million to match federal funds for preliminary engineering, 
        final design and construction of LRT in the Hiawatha Avenue 
        corridor,
  --$3 million for a major investment study, engineering, preliminary 
        engineering and implementation in the Riverview corridor, and
  --$1,500,000 for a major investment, study engineering and 
        implementation in the Northstar corridor.
    This is a significant step forward in identifying the State/Local 
match for the project. As we testified last year, we plan to move 
forward with a significant State-local overmatch of nearly 50 percent 
for the construction phase of this project, instead of the minimum 
requirement of 20 percent.
    It is important to note that this state financial commitment 
results from a strong consensus that has grown steadily over the last 
year. The consensus is that we must enhance our investment in transit 
to allow our regional transportation system to continue to function 
effectively.
                                hiawatha
    The Hiawatha Avenue Transitway Corridor is the Twin Cities region's 
highest priority corridor for a transit improvement. This corridor 
serves three of the largest economic and job centers in the region. 
Downtown Minneapolis currently provides 140,000 jobs; Airport, 18,000 
jobs; and Airport South-Mall of America about 21,000 jobs. An improved 
transit system will enable thousands of job seekers to gain access to 
these very important job centers.
    A Final Environmental Impact Statement approved by federal highway 
and transit agencies selected Light Rail Transit (LRT) as the preferred 
transit alternative for this corridor. Consequently, nearly all of the 
right of way required for a transit improvement has been preserved by 
Hennepin County and MN/DOT. This federal request and the 1998 State 
funding for transitway implementation is based upon LRT technology as 
the preferred option.
    During fiscal year 1998, the Hiawatha Corridor was allocated $10.5 
million in federal funds and those funds are being used to begin 
construction of the Transitway from downtown Minneapolis to 46th 
Street.
    In fiscal year 1999, we would request a dedicated amount of $29 
million for this Corridor from the Section 5309 New Rail Start Capital 
funding category of the Federal Transit Act. These funds would be 
matched by $10 million from the State and $7 million from Local 
sources, resulting in a State/local overmatch of 37 percent. These 
funds will be utilized to complete preliminary engineering, final 
design and continue construction of the Transitway for the entire 
corridor between downtown Minneapolis and Bloomington. This schedule, 
of course, would necessitate the timely approval of each phase of the 
project by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
                               riverview
    The Riverview Corridor is a 9.5-mile corridor centered around T.H. 
5 (Shepard Road)/West Seventh Street connecting the Hiawatha Avenue 
Transitway Corridor (Airport--Mall of America) to downtown St. Paul. 
The Riverview Corridor provides many of the same opportunities as the 
Hiawatha Corridor. Downtown St. Paul is clearly one of the major 
economic centers of the region with about 68,000 jobs. The Corridor 
between downtown and the airport connection to Hiawatha is primed for 
redevelopment. Improved transit in this corridor provides tremendous 
opportunities to open up the job markets within the Corridor as well as 
the opportunity to connect job seekers in St. Paul with the job markets 
at the airport and Mall of America.
    In fiscal Year 1998, a Major Investment Study (MIS) will be started 
that will include alternative alignments and modes. There is also a 
focus on economic development and transit-orientated development 
throughout the Corridor. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the MIS 
has been issued with responses due in April, 1998.
    For Fiscal year 1999, we would request a dedicated amount of $5 
million for this Corridor from the Section 5309 New Rail Start Capital 
funding category of the Federal Transit Act. With a total project cost 
of $6.25 million, the State/local match would be $1.25 million or a 20 
percent match. The funds will be used to complete the MIS, conduct 
engineering as appropriate and begin implementation of selected transit 
improvements within the Corridor.
                               northstar
    The Northstar Corridor is a 60-mile transportation corridor linking 
the City of Minneapolis, Anoka and Sherburne Counties, and the City of 
St. Cloud, Minnesota. The Northstar Corridor includes the Burlington 
Northern/Santa Fe Railroad mainline. The Northstar Corridor is the 
fastest growing area in Minnesota and one of the fastest growing 
corridors in the nation. The Northstar Corridor is the primary 
transportation route for automobile, truck, and rail travel. As the 
area grows, each of these modes will continue to suffer from increasing 
congestion and declining safety. This Corridor connection with Hiawatha 
in downtown Minneapolis will complete a north/south area link between 
St. Cloud and the northern metropolitan area to downtown Minneapolis 
and onto the airport and the Mall of America. This Corridor has also 
been designated by the Metropolitan Council as a high priority 
corridor. In the last year, the Northstar Corridor was ranked by the 
Minnesota Department of Transportation as the highest potential 
corridor for the development of commuter rail in the Twin Cities 
metropolitan area.
    In fiscal year 1998, the Corridor received an allocation of 
$350,000. With those funds the Corridor started a Major Investment 
Study (MIS), including alternative alignments and modes with a 
principal focus on evaluation of commuter rail alternatives between 
downtown Minneapolis through Anoka and Sherburne Counties to St. Cloud. 
Responses to the RFP for the MIS have been received with contract work 
to begin on May 1, 1998. Work for this phase is scheduled to be 
completed in December 1998.
    For fiscal year 1999, we request a dedicated amount of $6 million 
for this Corridor from the Section 5309 New Rail Start Capital funding 
category of the Federal Transit Act. With a total project cost this 
year of $7.5 million, the State/local match would be $1.5 million or a 
20 percent match. These funds would be used to continue the MIS, 
conduct engineering and environmental work as appropriate. There will 
also be an effort to begin implementation of selected transit 
improvements within the Corridor.
                  summary of request for federal funds
    Therefore, we are requesting the designation of $40 million of 
federal Section 5309 New Rail Start Capital funds for fiscal year 1999 
as follows:

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State/local
                Corridor                  Federal  ---------------------
                                           funds      Amount    Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiawatha...............................        $29     $17.00         37
Riverview..............................          5       1.25         20
Northstar..............................          6       1.50         20
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................         40      19.75         33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Chairman, we have tried to present a conservative request based 
upon funding levels that we believe can be obligated or expended in the 
next fiscal year. It is important to maintain the revenue stream in 
order to insure that the project proceeds without interruption. As we 
all know, delays in construction could mean significant increases in 
costs.
                               conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, I am presenting this testimony to you today 
representing the seven counties of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 
These projects have the full support of those counties, the 
Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 
The mayors and councils of the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul also 
support this program of projects.
    The Twin Cities region is in full agreement and committed to a 
transitway in the Hiawatha Corridor, planning and phased implementation 
of the Riverview Corridor and continued support for the Northstar 
Corridor to Anoka County and on to St. Cloud. The Metropolitan Council 
has endorsed the project as the region's highest transit priority. The 
Minnesota Department of Transportation will be the recipient of any 
federal funds.
    We are all in agreement and want to move ahead with this important 
transit proposal. We thank you your assistance last year and we ask 
that you help us continue our partnership in bringing Transitways to 
the Twin Cities region.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                 ______
                                 

   Prepared Statement of the Indianapolis Northeast Corridor Project

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, while we are not 
requesting any funding for fiscal year 1999, we are pleased to report 
that in our area of the Heartland the momentum continues to build for 
mass transit solutions to the traffic congestion that plagues the 
Indianapolis Northeast Corridor. We would like to thank this Committee 
for providing the catalyst for this momentum in the form of a fiscal 
year 1998 appropriation of $1.25 million toward the Major Investment 
Study (MIS). We are pleased to report we have been able to achieve a 30 
percent local funding match, greater than the required 80-20 match for 
New Starts. With the local funding share agreements totaling $500,000 
in place, the MIS is underway with the consultant selection process 
completed and orientation meetings scheduled. In addition to this local 
and state match, there are also some exciting developments in the 
private sector, which will enhance the viability of this project and 
which we detail below.
    We are aware that local match is important to the Committee in 
determining the allocation of federal resources, and we are pleased to 
report that our 30 percent local share is being split as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Amount   Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of Indiana....................................   $250,000     50.0
City of Indianapolis................................    125,000     25.0
Hamilton County.....................................     31,250     6.25
City of Carmel......................................     31,250     6.25
City of Noblesville.................................     31,250     6.25
Town of Fishers.....................................     31,250     6.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and State Senator Luke Kenley 
of Noblesville have been selected as Co-Chairmen of the Executive 
Committee overseeing the MIS process. Cooperation among the State of 
Indiana, the City of Indianapolis and the suburban areas of the 
Northeast Corridor has been good. We have also added the Beech Grove 
Amtrak Maintenance Center to the study area as a possible site for a 
light rail yard and shops.
    Additionally, three other developments are of significant interest 
to this project.
    (1) To date 17 communities or counties in the Indianapolis 
metropolitan area have adopted resolutions supporting the creation of a 
regional transit authority.
    (2) The Lilly Endowment, a private philanthropic foundation, is 
sponsoring a $500,000.00 Vision Planning process to develop community 
consensus and public support for mass transit solutions to 
transportation congestion problems in the nine county region. This 
process will include over 50 public information meetings and provide 
for large quantities of support materials (videotapes, brochures, etc.) 
to distribute to the public during the process. This effort will 
supplement the MIS process and help develop public consensus for the 
local elected officials. Lilly Endowment's support is a great benefit 
in the Indianapolis region.
    (3) Last week, a group of downtown Indianapolis business and 
governmental leaders revealed plans to move forward with the possible 
construction of a light rail/trolley system that would link major 
downtown destinations through a two-mile loop system. A feasibility 
study is currently underway and the project would be funded by local 
public and private funds. The estimated cost is $30-40 million dollars.
    Such a system could eventually become Phase I of an overall light 
rail system serving the Northeast Corridor if that is the 
recommendation of the MIS executive committee. It would also help 
reduce the amount of federal funds that might be requested on behalf of 
the Northeast Corridor project.
    In summary, significant steps are being taken in the region to 
provide a solution to the Northeast Corridor congestion problem. 
Preliminary recommendations from the MIS process should be available 
early in 1999 and will be forwarded to Congress and the Federal Transit 
Administration.
                                 ______
                                 

Prepared Statement of Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, County of Los 
   Angeles, First Vice Chair, Board of Directors, Los Angeles County 
              Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Los 
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Board of 
Directors, I thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony 
supporting the region's transportation network which is key to the 
future of Los Angeles County's livable communities and economic growth. 
As the Vice Chair of the MTA Board of Directors and a member of the Los 
Angeles County Board of Supervisors, I am pleased to request fiscal 
year 1999 Appropriations funding for the MTA's regional transportation 
projects and programs.
    The County of Los Angeles is populated with over 9 million people, 
which is equivalent to the ninth largest state in the nation. The 
economic vitality of the region, state, and nation depends on an 
efficient and reliable transportation system that supports our economy 
and communities. The Federal Government's investment in the region's 
transportation network helps drive our economy and infrastructure.
    Southern California is home to one of the nation's busiest trade 
areas. The County of Los Angeles contains two of the nation's most 
successful ports, Long Beach and Los Angeles. Additionally, the Los 
Angeles International Airport (LAX) is located within the County's 
boundaries. We look forward to the completion of the Alameda Corridor 
project which will dramatically increase the County's ability to move 
goods and people efficiently and economically.
    Our fiscal year 1999 Appropriations funding request, which is 
before you today, will allow us to progress towards accelerating our 
bus replacement schedule and allow us to continue to construct the MOS-
3 North Hollywood Extension of our Metro Rail Red Line Project. The 
request of $25 million of Section 5309 Discretionary Bus Capital funds 
and $100 million of Section 5309 Discretionary Fixed Guideway/New 
Starts funding for our North Hollywood Extension will enable us to 
further improve our Metro Bus services and extend our Metro Rail 
system.
                          new management team
    In 1997, the MTA Board brought in a new Chief Executive Officer 
(CEO), Julian Burke, whose top priority was to put the MTA's financial 
house in order. In December 1997, the MTA's new management team led by 
Mr. Burke presented to our Board of Directors a re-forecasted fiscal 
year 1997-98 Capital and Operating budget which achieved operating 
efficiencies, management and service changes.
    At a January 14, 1998 Special MTA Board of Directors Meeting, the 
CEO recommended and the MTA Board reaffirmed the completion of the MOS-
3 North Hollywood Extension. With this action, the MOS-2 project to 
Hollywood and the MOS-3 North Hollywood Extension are now the only rail 
projects that the MTA will proceed with construction until the MTA can 
determine the ability and timing of financing our other planned rail 
projects. In addition, the MTA will support and engage in an ongoing 
effort to preserve all funding, especially federal funding, authorized 
and programmed for these other rail projects.
    I am confident that the new management team headed by CEO Julian 
Burke will continue to work towards rebuilding the agency's 
credibility. I also am confident that they will be able to do this 
while supporting and advancing the MTA's regional transportation 
mission.
                fiscal year 1999 appropriations request
    The MTA's request for $25 million of Section 5309 Discretionary Bus 
Capital funds will assist us with our efforts to accelerate our bus 
replacement schedule and address the Federal Consent Decree 
requirements for improved regional bus service. The $100 million in 
Section 5309 Discretionary Fixed Guideway/New Starts funds for fiscal 
year 1999 is consistent with the Administration's fiscal year 1999 
request of $100 million. The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations request 
will help us to continue constructing the Metro Rail Red Line Project 
to North Hollywood by its current Revenue Operations Date (ROD) of 
December 2000.
                           metro bus service
    Los Angeles area commuters travel smart by using the MTA's Metro 
Buses. The Metro Bus system is one of the largest bus systems in the 
nation. The regional service covers 1,443 square miles of revenue 
service daily. Metro Bus daily boardings total over 1 million annually 
on 180 bus routes. Our system has more than 18,500 Metro Bus stops in 
the service area.
    The MTA has progressed in expanding peak-hour service by increasing 
the Metro Bus active fleet. In 1997, the MTA increased service by 
adding 106 peak vehicles. The MTA has expanded peak-hour service on 
heavily used lines, has adjusted schedules, and continues to improve 
equipment reliability and availability. Recent ridership surveys show 
that overcrowding has been reduced to 15 standees or fewer during rush 
hours on the most heavily used lines. We have added a new pilot program 
using 66 additional peak vehicles on routes designed to improve access 
to employment and educational opportunities as well as medical 
facilities particularly for transit-dependent residents.
    Also within the last year, the MTA Board approved the replacement 
of the current fleet of 2,400 buses by the year 2010. Additionally, the 
Board's plan ensures that by the year 2010, all of our vehicles will 
use clean fuels.
                          clean-fuel vehicles
    The MTA Board has made the use of clean-fuel vehicles one of its 
priorities. The MTA leads the nation in developing alternatively fueled 
clean transit vehicles and has the largest clean fuel fleet in the 
nation. By the end of the year 2000, the MTA will have more than 980 
compressed natural gas (CNG) powered buses.
    We are now receiving delivery of an order of 250 new CNG buses. 
Delivery of this purchase began last fall and will be completed in 
August 1998. The MTA Board of Directors approved an option to buy 50 
additional CNG buses which are scheduled to be delivered between August 
1998 and April 1999. Delivery of an additional 223 new CNG buses is 
scheduled between April through December 1999.
    Thanks to Congress, last year the MTA received an additional $10 
million in federal funds to continue its partnership with the FTA in 
the development and testing of the clean-fuel, lightweight, defense 
technology prototype vehicle known as the Advanced Technology Transit 
Bus (ATTB). In addition to the CNG bus procurement, the MTA Board on my 
motion recently approved ATTB elements as part of its bus acquisition 
plans and authorized the staff to include the ATTB-type components in 
future MTA procurements.
                               conclusion
    California's and Los Angeles County's competitive position in the 
global marketplace depends on a reliable transportation system. Mr. 
Chairman, we thank you and the Appropriations Committee for your 
continued support of Los Angeles County's intermodal transportation 
system.
    We continue to urge Congress and the Administration to allow the 
maximum level of funding for transportation investment and 
infrastructure. We respectfully request Congress to continue to fund 
the Capital Formula Program at the highest level.
    The MTA's fiscal year 1999 Appropriations request of $25 million in 
Section 5309 Discretionary Bus Capital funding for our bus replacement 
program will assist the MTA in meeting the needs of our transit-
dependent riders and the requirements of the Federal Consent Decree. In 
addition, the MTA's request of $100 million for Section 5309 
Discretionary Fixed Guideway/New Starts funding will allow us to 
continue to construct the MOS-3 North Hollywood Extension of our Metro 
Rail Red Line Project.
    The region's expanding transportation network is a critical part of 
the local, state, and national economic future. The transportation 
industry provides direct employment and allows our citizens to travel 
to and from work, school, housing and recreation. We look forward to 
your continued investment in our transportation programs. The federal 
share allows the region to remain competitive in the global economy, 
ensures mobility for our public, relieves congestion, and improves the 
air quality and the environment.
                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Patrick R. Judge, President, Louisiana Public 
                          Transit Association
  summary--louisiana fiscal year 1999 federal appropriations request 
                  federal transit administration (fta)
    New Start Rail, 49 U.S.C. Section 5309 (Formerly Section 3).
                                                          Appropriations

New Orleans Canal Street Corridor Project...............    $113,000,000
New Orleans Desire Street Streetcar.....................      41,600,000

    Bus and bus related facilities, 49 U.S.C. Section 5309 (Formerly 
Section 3). (Appropriations request only.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Federal \1\        Local           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge: Upgrade Downtown Transportation Center/Build 5             $750,000        $187,500        $937,500
 Transfer Terminals.............................................
Jefferson Parish; East Bank Park and Ride.......................       2,500,000         625,000       3,125,000
Lafayette:
    Multimodal Transportation Center............................       1,000,000         250,000       1,250,000
    Replace 4 buses.............................................         800,000         200,000       1,000,000
Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, Public
 Transportation:
    Replace 123 vans (Rural & E&H)..............................       1,600,000         400,000       2,000,000
    Rural Transit Expansion (vans)..............................       1,200,000         300,000       1,500,000
Monroe: Renovate maintenance facility...........................       2,000,000         500,000       2,500,000
New Orleans:
    Central Maintenance Facility................................       8,000,000       2,000,000      10,000,000
    Lease Maintenance Program (3 years).........................      32,000,000       8,000,000      40,000,000
Shreveport:
    Maintenance facility........................................         700,000         175,000         875,000
    Replace 4 buses.............................................         920,000         230,000       1,150,000
State Infrastructure Bank--Transit Account......................       1,600,000         400,000       2,000,000
St. Tammany Parish: Mandeville Park and Ride facility...........         300,000          75,000         375,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Totals....................................................      53,370,000      13,342,500      66,712,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts to be prorated should full funding not be realized.

    Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to the Senate 
Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations on behalf of the transit 
providers represented by the Louisiana Public Transit Association 
(LPTA).
    The Louisiana Public Transit Association (LPTA) represents over 120 
transit providers in Louisiana including rural providers, specialized 
transit services, and the state's urban and suburban systems.
    LPTA is requesting funding for a number of vital transit projects 
across Louisiana. The LPTA is coordinating this statewide effort to 
assist Louisiana transit systems in meeting their need for basic 
capital equipment, such as replacement buses and facilities. Due to the 
difficulty in obtaining section 5309 funding (formerly section 3) for 
bus and bus related facilities through the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) application process, the LPTA presents its 
statement to this committee in an effort to meet the state's long-
standing transit needs.
    Before explaining our project requests, the LPTA wishes to thank 
the subcommittee for its role in appropriating $13,900,000 for the 
$44.3 million fiscal year 1998 request made by Louisiana's transit 
providers. That funding will go a long way in helping the Louisiana 
transit providers.
    The total Louisiana request for fiscal year 1999 under FTA section 
5309 bus and bus related funding is $53,370,000. The request is for 11 
projects of varying size and cost from eight transit agencies.
    Briefly, those requests are for:
    The City of Baton Rouge, Capitol Transportation Corporation (CTC), 
is requesting a total of $750,000 for two projects important to the 
capital region. The funding is requested to upgrade the current major 
transfer facility located in downtown Baton Rouge. In addition, CTC is 
also proposing to build five (5) minor transfer facilities at locations 
on the periphery of their service area. These facilities will allow for 
more efficient transfers between existing transit routes. Baton Rouge 
has been designated a non-attainment area under Clean Air Act 
standards. The projects are positive for the environment, are critical 
to the need to control costs, and are necessary to reduce the need for 
capacity intensive infrastructure projects in the Baton Rouge ozone 
non-attainment area. Each project is expected to have a positive effect 
on congestion, energy reduction and travel time.
    Jefferson Parish, which funds and oversees two private transit 
systems on each side of the Mississippi River, Louisiana transit on the 
east and westside transit on the west, is seeking funding of $2,500,000 
to construct a park and ride facility for its east bank service area. 
The facility would connect via express and regular fixed-route bus 
service to the New Orleans central business district. The park and ride 
is proposed for the airline highway corridor which is heavily traveled 
and is currently enjoying a rejuvenation due to the recent construction 
of a minor league baseball stadium. Jefferson Parish currently operates 
two other park and ride facilities, both of them within their westbank 
service area.
    The City of Lafayette, through the City of Lafayette Transit System 
(COLTS) is seeking the remaining $1,000,000 of federal funds needed to 
reconstruct and reconfigure a site currently operating as a postal 
facility adjacent to an Amtrak station. The Lafayette Multimodal 
Transportation Center will serve as the terminal for the COLTS system, 
a Greyhound station, and as an enhanced Amtrak stop for the Sunset 
Limited. The Postal Service will also continue to use a portion of the 
site. Further, the transportation center will be connected to the 
airport via a presently operating COLTS line. The $3,500,000 project 
already has been designated with a positive environmental impact 
statement and is in the design phase with architectural plans being 
over 75 percent complete. Construction is scheduled to begin in March 
of 1999. The fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1997 transportation 
appropriations bills designated $750,000 and $752,000, respectively, 
towards the terminal project.
    COLTS is also seeking $800,000 to replace 4 transit buses that have 
exceeded their useful life of twelve years and are not accessible under 
ADA requirements.
    The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 
specifically the Office of Public Transportation, is in extreme need of 
another $1,600,000 of federal funding to allow the replacement of 46 
vans for both rural and specialized transit providers across Louisiana. 
The application for this funding has been pending before the FTA for 
nearly four years. All the vans to be replaced are inaccessible under 
ADA, exceed the useful life standard of 5 years by 2-4 years, and are 
far beyond the 100,000 miles cited as the mileage standard. Obviously, 
safety and dependability problems with vehicles of this size is a 
growing concern for the rural, elderly and disabled community across 
Louisiana. Additional demands for vans are expected to meet the demands 
of welfare reform.
    In order to meet the increasing demand for transit service in 
Louisiana's rural areas, the LPTA is requesting another $1,200,000 of 
section 5309 funding for expansion of the state's rural transit systems 
by 35 vehicles. Currently, many of the state's rural parishes do not 
have rural transit providers due to the LA DATD's backlog of 
replacement needs for existing operators. In addition, many current 
rural operators need to expand to meet the demands of welfare-to-work 
and other basic transportation needs as the population expands and ages 
in those rural areas. The program would be administered through the 
existing rural transit program of the Louisiana Department of 
Transportation & Development.
    The City of Monroe, through the Monroe Transit System (MTS), is 
requesting funding to renovate, expand, and update their aging 
maintenance facility in the amount of $2,000,000 for the $2,500,000 
project. MTS will renovate the 15 year old facility by adding bays to 
be dedicated to conduct cost saving preventative maintenance checks and 
to equip the facility with modern and safer equipment. In addition, MTS 
is planning to reconfigure the facility to allow for drive-through 
capability and space for added inventory. The facility is MTS only 
maintenance garage and the work proposed will make it much more 
efficient and economical to operate.
    The City of New Orleans, through the Regional Transit Authority 
(RTA), is requesting $32,000,000, which represents three years of 
payments under its innovative lease/maintenance program recently 
approved in-concept by the Federal Transit Administration. This new 
program will allow the RTA to enter into a lease and maintenance 
agreement with a commercial leasing company for the lease and 
maintenance of 75 new buses and 100 near new buses. The agreement will 
also allow the RTA to benefit from the recent changes that allow for 
the treatment of maintenance costs under a lease as an eligible capital 
expense. Penske Truck Leasing, through the RTA's RFP selection process, 
will be the lessor of the buses as well as provide for the maintenance 
of the buses. The financing will be by ABN-AMRO.
    With 451 vehicles, the RTA operates the largest system in Louisiana 
by providing service to nearly 180,000 riders per day in a city that is 
20 percent transit dependent. The buses leased will significantly 
reduce the operating expenses of the RTA and enhance its ability to 
provide dependable service.
    The RTA is also requesting $8,000,000 to continue progress on its 
heavy duty central maintenance facility (CMF). The $15,268,000 project 
is now in the architectural design stage.
    Finally, as you are probably aware, the RTA has pending two new 
start rail requests, one for the Canal Street corridor project (about 
to begin final design) for $113,000,000 and another $41,600,000 for the 
reconstruction of the Fabled Desire streetcar line (MIS expected to 
begin by May). Extensive detail of those projects will be provided by 
the RTA in separate testimony.
    The next request is on behalf of the City of Shreveport and its 
Sportran transit system for funding of a long needed upgrade and 
expansion of its 33 year old maintenance facility. The $700,000 federal 
request will allow Sportran to proceed to consolidate and revamp a 
facility in which the design and equipment is seriously outdated. For 
example, the roof is too low to service buses with lifts. Also, a 15-
year-old bus washer needs to be replaced. Finally, the facility lacks 
adequate space to store and service the system's vehicles. Sportran 
recently had to cancel a private maintenance contract for its 
paratransit system, thereby increasing its maintenance load by 30 
percent. Currently, Sportran is renting storage space a half mile away 
for parts. There are no meeting or training rooms and barely enough 
office space for four desks. Sportran has purchased the adjacent lot 
and has completed preliminary planning for the expansion.
    Sportran is also requesting $920,000 to replace four transit buses 
that have exceeded their useful life of twelve years and are not 
accessible under ADA requirements.
    On behalf of the Louisiana's transit operators, the LPTA is 
requesting $1,600,000 to fund the transit account of Louisiana's 
proposed State Infrastructure Bank (SIB). With the enabling legislation 
and governing structure already in place, the State Infrastructure Bank 
is awaiting the expected approval by Louisiana voters in the form of a 
constitutional amendment this fall. The SIB will be administered 
through the Louisiana State Treasurer's Office. As you probably are 
aware of the concept, the SIB will allow for the borrowing of funds by 
transit providers which will allow them to proceed and complete 
projects timely without waiting for their yearly allocation of funds. 
Use of SIB funds could conceivably reduce by years and thousands of 
dollars the time and cost of many transit projects/programs. Repayment 
could take the form of dedicating future allocations or other available 
revenue sources.
    The last request is on behalf of St. Tammany Parish which is 
requesting $300,000 for a park and ride facility to be located in 
Mandeville, a city located within western portion of the parish. St. 
Tammany Parish is located directly north and northeast of the city of 
New Orleans across Lake Pontchartrain. It is the fastest growing area 
of the region. The park & ride facility is to be located near the Lake 
Pontchartrain causeway and is expected to draw local residents which 
should help limit the expansive growth of traffic on the causeway. This 
project will be the second park & ride facility for the residents of 
St. Tammany Parish.
    The Louisiana Public Transit Association urges and requests that 
Congress appropriates to the highest levels possible under the terms 
authorized under the future ISTEA legislation. While not complete at 
the time of this statement, both the Senate and House versions of the 
renewed ISTEA are showing increased levels of funding for transit--
increases that are sorely needed by all of transit. The LPTA sincerely 
hopes that Congress follows through on that promise by appropriating to 
the levels authorized.
    Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on 
behalf of Louisiana's transit systems.
                          transit in louisiana
    Louisiana has 152 providers of public transit. Currently there are 
10 transit systems operating in the major metropolitan areas of the 
state, with an eleventh expected to begin operations within months. 
Another 33 agencies serve as rural transit providers and 109 agencies 
provide specialized public transit. The division of type is based on 
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines.
    Louisiana transit operators provide over 85,000,000 rides per 
year--232,000 per day--utilizing well over 1,100 vehicles.
    The profile of transit ridership tends to be between the ages of 
18-65, female with white riders making up over 80 percent of the 
passengers in rural areas while minority riders make up over 50 percent 
the riderahip in areas of 200,000 population and above.
    Many transit riders have no other way to get to work, to school, to 
medical care or to shop. Transit dependency runs as high as 95 percent 
of transit riders in some of Louisiana's rural areas. The New Orleans 
region ranks 7th in passenger trips per capita. New Orleans, if ranked 
alone, would rank second between New York and Boston.
    Transit providers employ over 2,000, directly generating an annual 
payroll exceeding $46,000,000. Spinoff employment for contractors, 
suppliers, etc. would also approach the $50 million mark.
    Transit means economic development to congested and rural areas as 
well as to those persons simply needing a ride to work.
    Louisiana Transit already plays a big role in reducing the state's 
Welfare rolls. Many systems are already working with Project 
Independence and other Public/Private employment programs and employers 
by providing dependable, inexpensive transportation.
    Transit's role continues to grow with the continuing ``greying of 
Americans,'' the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 
adoption of the Clean Air Act, the need for economic development within 
congested areas, attempting to keep liability insurance costs down, the 
need for coordinated transportation services and deficit reduction, and 
now, Welfare Reform.
    Of the $420 million in gas taxes generated for transportation in 
Louisiana, only $6 million or 1.4 percent is designated for public 
transit needs.

                                        LOUISIANA'S MAJOR TRANSIT SYSTEMS
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Passengers
                             System                              Vehicles \1\     (Yearly)     Employees  Routes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria.....................................................          13           665,015         32       8
Baton Rouge....................................................          53         4,201,127        106      22
Jefferson......................................................          57         3,871,659        126      14
Kenner \2\.....................................................           2           243,000          4       2
Lafayette......................................................          16         1,795,000         27      12
Lake Charles...................................................          12           372,433  .........  ......
Monroe.........................................................          20           835,890         45      16
New Orleans (RTA)..............................................     \3\ 463        68,999,031      1,400      52
                                                                     \4\ 44
St. Bernard....................................................           6           137,193          8       3
Shreveport.....................................................          58         3,578,000        105      16
Slidell/St. Tammany............................................         N/A               N/A        N/A     N/A
Houma..........................................................         N/A               N/A        N/A     N/A
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Totals...................................................         744        84,698,348      1,853
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Demand Response (Paratransit) vehicles.
\2\ Operated by the Regional Transit Authority.
\3\ Buses.
\4\ Streetcars.
 
Source: 1997 LPTA Survey/1994 National Transit Database (in part).


                    LOUISIANA'S MAJOR TRANSIT SYSTEMS
                    [Percentage of Operating Budget]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fare/
              System                percentage   Local   Federal  States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria........................   $.35/13.0    52.0      27.0     8.0
Baton Rouge.......................  $1.25/39.0    43.0      12.0     6.0
Jefferson.........................  $1.00/76.0     4.0      35.6    13.6
Kenner............................   $.80/42.7    33.0      24.0  ( \1\
                                                                       )
Lafayette.........................   $.45/15.0    48.0      29.0     7.0
Lake Charles......................   $0.0/11.0    41.0      44.0     3.0
Monroe............................   $.60/22.0    43.0      26.0     9.0
New Orleans.......................  $1.00/40.0    48.0       5.0     4.0
St. Bernard.......................  $1.00/22.0    20.0      51.0     6.0
Shreveport........................   $.90/31.0    51.0       8.0     8.0
Slidell/St. Tammany...............         N/A     N/A       N/A     N/A
Houma.............................         N/A     N/A       N/A     N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kenner utilizes its state funding for its Park-N-Ride service.

                   louisiana's suburban/urban system
                                contacts
Alexandria--ATRANS
    Patrick Leaumont, General Manager, ATRANS, 2021 Industrial Park 
Road, Alexandria, LA 71301, (318) 441-6087, FAX (318) 441-6047.
Baton Rouge--Capitol Transportation Corporation (CTC)
    Michael McCleary, Executive Director, Capitol Transportation 
Corporation, 1111 Seneca, Baton Rouge, LA 70805, (504) 343-8331, FAX 
(504) 383-3235.
Houma (Future)
    Kevin Ghirardi, Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, P. O. 
Box 6097, Houma, LA 70361, (504) 873-6890, FAX (504) 873-6439.
Jefferson Parish--Louisiana Transit & Westside Transit
    Pat Johnson, Transit Administrator, Jefferson Parish Transit 
Administration, 21 Westbank Expressway, Gretna, LA 70053, (504) 364-
3450, FAX (504) 364-3453.
Lafayette--COLTS
    Lee Roy Dugas, Transit Manager, Dean Tekell, Transp. Engineer, City 
of Lafayette Transit System, P.O. Box 4017-C, Lafayette, LA 70502, 
(318) 261-8545, FAX (318) 261-8041.
Lake Charles--LTS
    S. S. Ike Hall, Transit Director, Lake Charles Transit System, P.O. 
Box 900, Lake Charles, LA 70602-0900, (318) 491-1253, FAX (318) 491-
1587.
Monroe--MTS
    Ken Monroe, General Manager, Monroe Transit System, P.O. Box 1431, 
Monroe, LA 71201, (318) 329-2206, FAX (318) 329-2868.
New Orleans & Kenner--RTA
    William Deville, Deputy General Manager, Patrick Judge, Dir/IGR, 
Regional Transit Authority, 6700 Plaza Drive, New Orleans, LA 70127, 
(504) 248-3842, FAX (504) 248-3637.
St. Bernard--SBURT
    Lonnie Campbell, Transit Manager, SBURT, 8201 W. Judge Perez Drive, 
Chalmette, LA 70043, (504) 277-1907, FAX (504) 278-1529.
Shreveport--SPORTRAN
    Eugene Eddy, Resident Manager, SPORTRAN, 1115 Jack Wells Boulevard, 
Shreveport, LA 71137, (318) 673-7400, FAX (318) 673-7424.

                  Rural public transportation providers

Acadia Parish, Lloyd Guidry.............................    318/788-1400
Ascension Parish, Grace Garon...........................    504/473-3789
Assumption Parish, Rosa Lou Molaison....................    504/369-7961
Avovelles Parish, Joyce Laborde.........................    318/253-9771
Bienville Parish, Elton Lamkin..........................    318/263-8936
Bossier Parish, Manuel Duque............................    318/747-1045
Caldwell Parish, Dottie Etheridge.......................    318/649-2584
Cameron Parish, Dinah Landry............................    318/775-5668
Claiborne Parish, Jean Reynolds.........................    318/927-3557
Concordia Parish, Dorothy McDonald......................    318/336-7887
DeSoto Parish, Betty Walker.............................    318/872-3700
E. Feliciana Parish, Elsie Smith........................    504/683-9862
Evangeline Parish, Janice Guillory......................    318/363-5161
Iberville Parish, Nora Painia...........................    504/687-9682
Jefferson Davis Parish, Helen Langley...................    318/824-5504
Lafourche Parish, Gaylia Simons.........................    504/537-6784
Lincoln Parish, Rosalind Jones..........................    318/251-5136
Livingston Parish, Mary Alice Core......................    504/664-9343
Madison Parish, Harold Ogden............................    318/574-2921
Natchitoches Parish, Norma Metoyer......................    318/357-3250
Pointe Coupee Parish, Betty Dailey......................    504/638-4402
Red River Parish, Mary Wailes...........................    318/932-5721
St. James Parish, Tom Watson............................    504/562-2307
St. Landry Parish, Donald Robinson......................    318/948-3651
St. Martin Parish, Earline Countee......................    318/332-3063
St. Mary Parish, Jane Powers............................    318/328-4100
Tangipahoa Parish, Debi Fleming.........................    504/748-7486
Vermilion Parish, Bernice Hebert........................    318/893-2563
Vernon Parish, David Hudgens............................    318/239-0311
Washington Parish, Jane Rester..........................    504/839-4535
Webster Parish, Gordon Ervin............................    318/377-7022
W. Feliciana Parish, Patricia Gilmore...................    504/635-6719
W. Ouachita Parish, Jeanette Ellington..................    318/324-1280
                                 ______
                                 

 Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

                           executive summary
    Metro Atlanta is one of the fastest growing major metropolitan 
areas in the nation, with a population now exceeding 3.6 million. In 
order to provide improved transit service to this expanding region, the 
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is requesting 
Federal financial support for two major capital programs in fiscal year 
1999. These programs consist of the continued development of the North 
Line heavy rail extension to North Springs and the purchase of clean-
air buses.
    MARTA respectfully requests the Appropriations Committees of the 
105th United States Congress to earmark $62,623,646 in fiscal year 1999 
FTA New Fixed Guideway and Extension funds for the continued 
development of the North Line Extension Project. This project was 
authorized in ISTEA and is the subject of a Full Funding Grant 
Agreement between the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and MARTA. 
The requested funds will be utilized for the continued development of 
the heavy rail extension to the Sandy Springs and North Springs 
Stations.
    MARTA's North Line rail service will consist of over nine miles of 
heavy rail transit and five stations upon completion in December 2000. 
Currently, there are over seven miles of track and three stations that 
opened for passenger service in June 1996. The opening of these initial 
North Line stations increased MARTA's total operating rail system to 46 
miles of track and 36 stations.
    Additionally, MARTA has significant capital funding needs in 
support of our Bus program. As part of an effort to improve air quality 
in the non-attainment Atlanta region, MARTA is committed to the use of 
clean-engine vehicles. To further this commitment, we respectfully 
request the Appropriations Committees of the 105th Congress to allocate 
$19,500,000 in fiscal year 1999 FTA Section 3 Bus and Bus Related funds 
for the purchase of 75 clean-air buses.
    The background, rationale and justification supporting these 
requests are set forth in the following pages.
                     overview of the atlanta region
    Metro Atlanta is one of the fastest growing major metropolitan 
areas in the United States. The metro area's growth rate from 1990-1997 
was approximately 23 percent--the growth leader of all metro areas over 
two million people. Metro Atlanta has added over 670,000 people since 
the 1990 census and now has a population of over 3,635,000. By the year 
2020, the population of the Atlanta MSA should approach five million.
    Atlanta has become a major metropolitan area of international 
importance. Always a primary transportation hub, Atlanta is served by 
Hartsfield International Airport--the second busiest airport in the 
World. Atlanta currently ranks 11th among U.S. cities in the number of 
national corporate headquarters. The area's robust economic growth is 
expected to continue with recent forecasts calling for the addition of 
374,000 jobs in the 10-county region between 1995 and 2005.
    The area to be served by the North Line Extension Project is the 
fastest growing segment of the Atlanta region. The Atlanta Regional 
Commission projects that this corridor alone will have grown by 144 
percent between 1980 and 2005. Employment will grow even faster: up 422 
percent from 53,000 to 277,000 over the same time period. As the 
geographic center of the region migrates north, there is a visible need 
to improve access between the burgeoning north Atlanta suburbs and the 
central city and international airport to the south.
    Not surprising, given the growth in population and employment, the 
Atlanta area has a significant air quality problem. In accordance with 
the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, the EPA has classified the 
Atlanta region as a serious non-attainment area for ground level ozone. 
This air quality problem translates to serious health concerns for our 
residents. Ground level ozone is particularly harmful to those with 
asthma, children, the elderly and those who exercise outdoors.
    Much of the pollution that forms Atlanta's ozone is due to 
transportation-related motor vehicle emissions. As the region grows, 
traffic volumes--and resultant vehicular emissions--continue to 
increase.
    Traffic congestion has now reached crisis proportions, particularly 
in the northern suburbs to be served by the MARTA North Line Extension. 
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Metro Atlanta have increased 65 percent 
over the last decade, due in part to the booming growth north of the 
City. Atlanta now has the highest level of vehicle miles traveled per 
person in the U.S. The provisions of both the Clean Air Act Amendments 
(CAAA) and ISTEA point to rail transit service as the solution to 
mobility problems in this major development corridor.
    The air quality problem facing the metro area has now reached a 
critical stage. The region's failure to meet targeted emissions 
reductions has resulted in a recent cutoff of federal funds for new 
highway projects. Of increasing concern is the realization that the 
region will not meet the targeted 1999 air quality standard, which may 
result in additional sanctions. Clearly, viable alternatives to single 
occupant vehicle travel must be implemented if the Atlanta region is to 
continue to prosper.
    Current projections indicate sustained growth north of the city, 
and MARTA transit services will be crucial to meet the growing public 
transportation requirements. As the region goes forward into the new 
millennium, the mobility and air quality challenges are enormous. MARTA 
is ready to be the vehicle carrying metro Atlanta's citizens into the 
future.
                           overview of marta
    In March 1965, the Georgia General Assembly, by a vote of 205 to 
12, passed the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Act, 
thereby creating MARTA. The sole purpose was to plan, build and operate 
a public mass transportation system serving the metropolitan area, 
including the city of Atlanta and its five surrounding counties. The 
local referenda ratifying participation in the Authority succeeded in 
the city of Atlanta and all but one of the five counties. The following 
six years were devoted to technical studies, reports, forums and public 
hearings to confirm the need for a long range regional transportation 
plan.
    Voters in the City of Atlanta, Fulton, and DeKalb Counties approved 
the Rapid Transit Contract and Assistance Agreement (RTCAA) in November 
1971. The RTCAA described in detail the planned service improvements 
for bus and rail, and authorized the local governments to impose a one-
cent MARTA sales tax.
    MARTA currently operates a state-of-the art, intermodal regional 
transit system which fully integrates rapid rail, fixed route bus and 
paratransit service. At present, the combined bus-rail system carries 
67 million passengers annually over 53 million vehicle miles of service 
area. MARTA currently operates heavy rail service over 46 miles of 
track to 36 passenger stations, and bus service over 1,520 route miles 
using 159 routes. Our demand-responsive paratransit service operates 
over 1,518,000 vehicle revenue miles annually.
    MARTA, while proud of our past accomplishments, strives for 
continuous quality improvement in customer service delivery and 
business management. Some recent highlights are as follows:
  --As the Official Provider of Public Transportation for the 1996 
        Summer Olympic Games, MARTA carried more than 25 million 
        passengers over a 17-day period.
  --MARTA has experienced a steady increase in ridership since the 
        Olympics. Ridership increased 3.6 percent (after adjusting for 
        Olympic period patronage) during fiscal year 1997. Ridership 
        during the recent five-month period (September 1997 to January 
        1998) was up 9.1 percent over the same period one year ago.
  --MARTA is a leader in providing accessible transit services for 
        disabled persons. Our complementary ADA paratransit service has 
        nearly doubled the number of daily trips operated and new 
        customers certified during the past year.
  --Through an innovative public/private partnership, MARTA, Atlanta 
        Gas Light Company and the State of Georgia are jointly 
        proceeding with, and funding the use of, compressed natural gas 
        (CNG) fueled buses.
  --MARTA, in partnership with the Georgia Department of 
        Transportation, has become a leader in the deployment of 
        Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) infrastructure. MARTA 
        is continuing to refine and expand our ITS capabilities, and 
        now has the most comprehensive, integrated and complex 
        application of ITS in the transit industry.
  --Through the focused implementation of our Strategic Plan, MARTA has 
        initiated several expanded customer service initiatives. These 
        include a 10-point MARTA Pledge to Our Customers and a one-stop 
        Customer Service Center.
  --MARTA operates one of the most secure transit systems in the 
        country. Our well-trained professional police force is one of 
        only two transit police departments in the U.S. to be 
        nationally accredited. Based on innovative crime prevention 
        programs, Part I offenses on the system have declined 30 
        percent this year.
  --Based on customer feedback, a ``Not on My MARTA'' Campaign focusing 
        on zero tolerance of quality of life violations was initiated 
        last year. As a result, there has been a steady decrease in 
        smoking, eating and drinking on the system, with a favorable 
        customer response.
  --The MARTA Partnership Program, which enables area employers to 
        subsidize the cost of fare media for their employees, continues 
        to expand and now includes 110 employers and over 16,700 rider 
        customers.
  --MARTA is forging a partnership with private enterprise in the 
        creation of Transit Oriented Development adjacent to our rail 
        stations. Currently, we are evaluating proposals from the 
        private sector to develop a 47-acre site that has been 
        assembled around the Lindbergh Center Station.
  --MARTA is the best solution for compliance with Clean Air Act 
        Amendment requirements for the metro area's congestion and air 
        quality problems.
             update of the marta rapid transit rail program
    The current MARTA rail system consists of 46 miles, 36 stations, 
and 238 rail cars. At present, the network includes two (2) main trunk 
lines (North/South and East/West) that intersect in the Atlanta Central 
Business District, and two (2) branches (Northeast and Proctor Creek) 
(see map at Enclosure 1). The last three stations placed in revenue 
service--Buckhead, Medical Center and Dunwoody--were completed in June 
1996 as the initial phase of the new MARTA North Line.
    Through the completion of the North Line segments through Dunwoody, 
the Federal contribution to MARTA's rapid rail development program has 
been 54 percent of the total $2.8 billion invested to date. MARTA has 
been fortunate to obtain Federal funding to build one of the country's 
premier transit systems. As MARTA continues its progress toward the 
expanded RTCAA plan configuration, focus has now turned to the North 
Line Extension currently under development.
                          north line extension
Project Background and Description
    The central portion of the Atlanta northern corridor has become a 
dense urban center that rivals downtown Atlanta. It is the largest of 
the six edge cities in the metropolitan area. More than 20 million 
square feet of mixed use space exists now or is under development. Just 
north of this core, another 30 million square feet of commercial space 
either exists or is planned for development. This explosive growth has 
led to significant automobile traffic congestion and delays. Traffic 
counts on the GA 400 expressway serving the corridor already exceed 
those predicted for the year 2010. Additionally, the demand for public 
transit to transport workers from the central city to jobs in the 
corridor is increasing.
    Based on the existing and projected high rate of growth in this 
area, in the late 1980's local officials in the Atlanta region--after 
receiving extensive community input--determined that MARTA heavy rail 
was the preferred transportation alternative for the corridor. 
Following the completion of the environmental review process in 1991, 
the North Line Extension project was authorized in ISTEA. FTA 
subsequently entered into a Full Funding Grant Agreement with MARTA for 
the development of the 1.9 mile portion of the extension beyond 
Dunwoody Station through and including the Sandy Springs and North 
Springs stations, including the purchase of additional rail passenger 
cars.
    The new MARTA North Line begins at the junction with the Northeast 
Line 0.8 mile north of the Lindbergh Center Station. The initial 
portion of the new North Line was constructed in the median of Georgia 
State Highway 400 (``GA 400''), a six-lane toll road built to 
interstate standards connecting I-85 with the pre-existing GA 400 
freeway north of the Perimeter (I-285). This segment of 7.5 miles and 
three stations (Buckhead, Medical Center and Dunwoody) opened ahead of 
schedule in June 1996. This segment was financed with 26 percent 
Federal funds and 74 percent local funds. Now, MARTA requests $62.6 
million in fiscal year 1999 Federal funds to continue the North Line 
Extension Project beyond Dunwoody Station.
    The Dunwoody Station, which opened in June 1996, serves the large 
retail centers and office developments in the Perimeter Mall area and a 
number of upscale hotels nearby. (See Major Developments in North 
Atlanta map at Enclosure 2.) This station is located immediately north 
of the I-285 perimeter freeway. Ridership demand at Dunwoody has 
substantially exceeded projections, and a second parking deck to 
accommodate customer demand is now under construction adjacent to the 
station.
    The North Line Extension for which funding is now requested begins 
at the end of the Dunwoody Station tail track and proceeds 0.9 mile 
northwest in subway to the Sandy Springs Station. (An aerial photograph 
of the Extension can be found at Enclosure 3.) From Sandy Springs 
Station, the line extends one mile north on the east side of the GA 400 
freeway to the North Springs Station.
    The Sandy Springs Station will be located at the hub of the 
extensive development of corporate office complexes and full service 
hotels north of the Perimeter Center area. The station, located one 
mile north of the Dunwoody Station, will serve the local area with 
significant park/ride capacity (1,100 spaces) as well as provide a 
convenient intermodal connection for local bus service. Sandy Springs 
will be an underground station with provisions for direct connections 
to the major transit oriented development planned for the immediate 
vicinity. According to year 2005 projections, Sandy Springs Station 
will be used by 11,332 patrons daily, including 2,692 during peak 
hours.
    The North Springs Station will be built adjacent to the Georgia 400 
expressway, thereby providing easy access for bus feeder routes as well 
as automobile commuters bound for intown destinations. This end-of-line 
station will include a 2,460 space park/ride facility divided into two 
areas: a six-level deck (2,180 spaces) for those traveling southbound 
on GA 400 and a 280-space surface lot for local neighborhood residents. 
North Springs Station will serve as a major intermodal node and will 
alleviate the heavy traffic congestion on GA 400. One of the unique 
characteristics of the station are the exclusive access ramps 
connecting GA 400 directly with the station parking deck. According to 
year 2005 projections, North Springs Station will be used by 24,979 
patrons daily, including 3,464 during peak hours.
    The Sandy Springs and North Springs stations will be built in full 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Each station 
will include a visual public address system, tactile warning edge 
strips, accessible ramps, Braille and high contrast signage, and glass-
enclosed elevators. Both stations will open for revenue service in 
December 2000.
    The MARTA North Line Extension will result in significant long-term 
economic benefits to both individuals and businesses. This extension 
will encourage reverse commuting from areas of high unemployment in the 
central city to job-rich suburban employment centers. Several major 
international corporations are headquartered in the project area, 
including United Parcel Service (UPS) and Holiday Inn Worldwide. Also, 
the regional offices of several high tech firms, including Hewlett 
Packard and MCI, are located in the North Line corridor.
    This extension will significantly improve mobility between this 
burgeoning growth area and major points of origin/destination to the 
south. The estimated economic benefit resulting from reduced congestion 
is projected to be $377 million, with an estimated benefit of $216 
million in travel time savings. The extension will provide a direct 
rapid rail connection to Hartsfield International Airport (24 miles to 
the south), which has a MARTA station inside the main terminal. 
Travelers' boarding the train at North Springs during rush hour will be 
at the Airport within 42 minutes.
Project Status
    The project is progressing on schedule towards the targeted 
December 2000 revenue service date. Construction of the line section 
between Dunwoody and Sandy Springs and the Sandy Springs station shell 
began in October 1996, and construction of the station interior work 
will start in January 1999. Construction of the North Springs Station 
is underway, and initial earthwork activities are now completed at the 
station site. Construction of the line section between Sandy Springs 
and North Springs is also underway. Detail design of systemwide 
(automated train control, trackwork, communications, etc.) improvements 
began in July 1996. The design of the roadway access ramps and overpass 
bridge connecting North Springs station with the GA 400 expressway is 
approximately 30 percent complete.
    In late 1996, MARTA's reevaluation of expanded customer service 
demands and estimated patronage growth in this rapidly developing area 
resulted in a decision to increase the number of rail cars to be 
acquired to support this extension. The planned rail car requirement 
has been increased from 28 to 56 passenger vehicles, a net increase of 
28 cars. The contract to procure these vehicles was awarded in February 
1998, with initial delivery scheduled for fiscal year 2000.
    The North Line Extension above Dunwoody, through Sandy Springs to 
North Springs Station, is estimated to cost $467.4 million. This 
estimate is based on completion of the project in the year 2000 and 
includes $132.3 million for the design and purchase of 56 passenger 
vehicles. This estimate is $20.3 million lower than the cost estimate 
submitted to Congress last year. The decrease in the estimated cost of 
the project is due to the per unit cost savings realized from the 
recent (February 1998) award of the rail car procurement contract. 
MARTA was able to achieve a significant economy of scale with our rail 
car manufacturer by consolidating our vehicle requirements into a 
single base contract, as opposed to obtaining the same quantity of 
vehicles through a series of contract options as had been originally 
planned.
    Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1999 will primarily fund 
the next year of construction activity at Sandy Springs (station and 
line segment) and North Springs (station and line segment).
Financial Status
    The initial phase of the North Line through Dunwoody Station has 
been constructed at a cost of $362.3 million, with a federal share of 
only $92.5 million (26 percent). The balance of the North Line (North 
Line Extension) is budgeted at a cost of $467.4 million and is expected 
to be financed with 80 percent Federal ($373.9 million) and 20 percent 
local ($93.5 million) funds. Included in this cost estimate is the 
acquisition of 56 additional rail cars required to provide service on 
this extension.
    Taken together, the entire North Line--from the junction south of 
Buckhead through North Springs--is programmed at a total cost of $830 
million, of which $363 million, or 44 percent, will be locally funded. 
This sizable local contribution demonstrates the Atlanta region's 
significant commitment to this vital transportation improvement.
    Upon completion in December 2000, MARTA's North Line rail service 
will extend 9.4 miles in length, with five stations (Buckhead, Medical 
Center, Dunwoody, Sandy Springs and North Springs) and 5,188 park and 
ride spaces.
                      update of the marta bus plan
    MARTA's fixed-route bus fleet consists of 704 transit buses. There 
are 159 bus routes that cover 1,520 route miles and, on a daily basis, 
MARTA buses travel 99,902 vehicle miles. Our buses operate a total of 
26.7 million annual vehicle revenue miles. During 1997, MARTA 
experienced an average daily bus ridership of 242,000.
    MARTA is committed to providing safe, reliable and accessible bus 
service to our customers. MARTA's bus replacement plan is based on 
replacement of existing vehicles after 12 years (or 500,000 miles) of 
service life in accordance with FTA guidelines. The Plan's objective is 
to maintain an average fleet age of approximately six (6) years. The 
average age of MARTA's bus fleet is currently 7.5 years, with a total 
of 193 buses that are now in service eligible for retirement by the end 
of fiscal year 1999.
    MARTA strives for safety in the operation of buses and successfully 
competes with other comparable systems for safety recognition. 
Recently, MARTA received the 1997 Allen S. Boyd Special Achievement 
Award for bus safety from the American Public Transit Association.
    MARTA has committed to provide 100 percent accessibility of our bus 
fleet. Currently, the fleet is 80 percent wheelchair accessible, and 
all future bus purchases will meet ADA guidelines for accessibility. 
Currently, there are 144 non-wheelchair accessible (1986-model) buses 
which remain in service. These buses should be replaced within two 
years, based on federal funding availability. Our goal is to reach 100 
percent accessibility by the Year 2000.
    MARTA has embarked upon an innovative program to integrate 
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology with our bus 
operations. At present, 241 buses are equipped with automatic vehicle 
locator (AVL) devices. AVL provides ``real time'' schedule adherence 
and vehicle location information to MARTA customers and operations 
management, and is the foundation for other ITS applications (such as 
automated passenger counters, and in-vehicle announcement systems).
    MARTA's demand-responsive paratransit service continues to serve 
more customers through greater operating efficiencies resulting from 
the application of automated scheduling and dispatch technology. At 
present, our fleet of 75 lift-equipped vans provides approximately 
1,060,000 passenger miles of ADA-related service on an annual basis.
    Due to the serious air quality problems in the Atlanta region, 
MARTA has embarked upon a program to convert up to one-third of our bus 
fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG) operation by the end of the 
decade. Through the combined assistance of the Congress, the FTA, the 
State of Georgia and the Atlanta Gas Light Company, MARTA recently 
acquired 118 CNG-fueled buses. This was our initial procurement of CNG 
buses with the ultimate goal of acquiring 200 CNG buses before the year 
2000. These extremely clean-burning CNG buses exceed the EPA emission 
requirements under the Clean Air Act Amendments.
    MARTA is introducing CNG-fueled buses to the Atlanta region through 
a significant partnership with the Atlanta Gas Light Company (AGL). A 
new $28 million CNG bus maintenance and refueling facility, paid for 
with AGL and MARTA funds, recently began operation. Cleaner fueled 
buses will help the Atlanta region meet its ambient air quality goals 
for 1999 and beyond.
                fiscal year 1999 federal funding request
    MARTA respectfully requests the Appropriations Committees of the 
105th United States Congress to provide fiscal year 1999 Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA) Major Capital Investment funds to address 
two specific transit needs, as follows: (i) $62,623,646 in New Fixed 
Guideway Systems and Extension funds to continue the North Line 
Extension Project; and (ii) $19,500,000 in Bus and Bus Related funds 
for the purchase of approximately 75 replacement clean-air buses.
New Fixed Guideway and Extension Funds
    MARTA is requesting $62,623,646 for the continued development of 
the North Line Extension above Dunwoody, through Sandy Springs to North 
Springs Station. This amount reflects the scheduled fiscal year 1999 
funding level contained in our Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with 
FTA, plus the amount needed to make up for the difference between the 
FFGA-programmed amounts for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 and 
the actual allocations received by MARTA. (In fiscal year 1997, the 
amount appropriated for this project was $2.9 million less than the 
FFGA-specified amount, while in fiscal year 1998 our actual funding 
level was $7.6 million less.)
    The requested $62.6 million in fiscal year 1999 FTA New Starts and 
Extension funds will support the following project activities: 
continued construction of the Sandy Springs Station and parking deck; 
completion of North Springs line segment construction; continued 
construction of the North Springs Station, parking deck and tail track; 
initial construction of the GA 400 highway--North Springs station 
access ramps; and the initial pre-production (mobilization, engineering 
and tooling) cost associated with the rail car procurement. Total MARTA 
contractual obligations for the construction of these segments through 
October 1, 1998, are estimated to be $371.5 million. Thus, there is a 
clear justification for continued Federal funding during the upcoming 
period.
    MARTA is requesting a total (multi-year) Federal contribution of 
$373,922,400 for the North Line Extension project. This funding level 
represents 80 percent of the total estimated project cost of 
$467,403,000. Of the total proposed Federal share, $198,146,866 has 
been secured to date either through previous Congressional 
appropriations or FTA reobligations to the Project. MARTA expects to 
request total additional Federal appropriations of $175,775,534 to 
complete this project, including the $62,623,646 now requested for 
fiscal year 1999.
    The balance of the proposed Federal contribution remaining to be 
funded in future years, assuming the appropriation of the full amount 
requested, will be $113.2 million [$373.9 million--$198.1 million (past 
years)--$62.6 million (fiscal year 1999) = $113.2 million]. These out-
year funds will be needed to complete construction activities and 
procure the 56 additional rail cars required for this extension.
Section 3 Bus and Bus Related Funds
    The amount of $19,500,000 is respectfully requested as the Federal 
share to purchase approximately 75 new clean-emission buses to replace 
aging, non-wheelchair accessible buses. This level of funding in fiscal 
year 1999 will enable MARTA to achieve our goals of making the bus 
system 100 percent wheelchair accessible as well as convert one-third 
of our bus fleet to CNG operation by the end of the century.
    The $19.5 million requested would be matched with $4.9 million in 
local MARTA funds for a total project cost of $24.4 million. This 
estimated total cost is based on a projected average unit cost of 
$325,000 per bus. These funds will be used to acquire approximately 75 
transit buses, which represents only a portion of MARTA's total bus 
replacement requirements over the next 18 months. It is currently 
planned that these new vehicles will include a mix of transit bus 
models to meet specific service and operational requirements, as 
follows: (a) 36 CNG 40-foot buses; (b) 22 clean diesel 30-foot buses; 
and (c) 17 clean diesel 40-foot buses. All of the buses to be acquired 
will be of low floor design. Low floor buses are wheelchair accessible, 
allow for easy and convenient boarding by all passengers, and are 
economical to operate. It is also anticipated that these buses will be 
equipped with automated vehicle locator (AVL) devices.
    MARTA's bus replacement plan calls for 144 buses that will have 
exceeded the normal 12-year service life to be retired by the end of 
fiscal year 1998, with 49 more buses eligible for retirement in fiscal 
year 1999. To date, federal funding has been secured for only 47 of the 
144 buses that should be replaced in 1998. Thus, there is a clear 
justification for continued Federal funding during the upcoming period.
    All buses being replaced will exceed the minimum FTA replacement 
criteria of 12 years or 500,000 miles of accumulated service, and are 
not wheelchair accessible. The new buses will fully meet the 
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as, 
the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Efforts to bring the bus fleet 
into full compliance with these two statutes are crucial to meeting the 
mobility, accessibility and air quality goals of the Atlanta region.
    MARTA is indeed grateful for the vital assistance previously 
provided by the Congress in support of public transportation in the 
Atlanta region. The continued support of the Congress is essential if 
Atlanta is to realize the promise of ISTEA, comply with the Clean Air 
Act Amendments and meet the transportation challenges facing our 
growing region.

                       Enclosure 1.--Rail System
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.003

           Enclosure 2.--Major Developments in North Atlanta
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.004

                                 ______
                                 

  Prepared Statement of Vice Mayor Jose Smith, City of Miami Beach, FL

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Transportation Subcommittee: I am 
Jose Smith, Vice Mayor of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, on behalf 
of Miami Beach.
    The City respectfully submits a transportation-related project for 
a discretionary earmark through the Federal Transit Administration, 
within the fiscal year 1999 Transportation Appropriations Bill. The 
City-proposed earmark of $7 million will be used toward a Miami Beach 
multimodal transit center project that will support the City's existing 
electric shuttle park-and-ride service, known as the Electrowave.
    This innovative and environmentally-friendly park-and-ride program 
is presently serving South Beach--a congested, urban-residential, and 
commercial historical district of Miami Beach. However, an outlying 
transit center/parking facility to support the park-and-ride and other 
transit services is still needed.
    The multimodal center will provide a vital transportation hub for 
the area, bring commuters and visitors together with parking, an 
information center, the local and regional transit services, as well as 
the Electrowave. Employees of South Beach businesses will also park-
and-ride from this facility, which will be strategically located to 
serve the incoming traffic from an arterial causeway. The transit 
center will also include a full-scale facility for the Electrowave 
program and its electric battery-operated vehicles.
    In addition, the multimodal center will serve as the terminus of an 
east-west multimodal corridor--a regional transportation project which 
proposes to interconnect the Florida Turnpike, the Palmetto Expressway, 
the Dolphin Expressway and I-95, with the Miami International Airport/
Intermodel Center, downtown, the Seaport, and Miami Beach.
    The Electrowave program is included in the five-year Transportation 
Improvement Program of Miami-Dade County and has the financial support 
of the City, the Florida Department of Transportation, the FTA/Miami-
Dade Transit Agency, the Florida Power and Light Company, and other 
clean air and energy organizations.
    A fiscal year 1999 discretionary FTA fund earmark toward a Miami 
Beach multimodal center project is critical to the long-term 
effectiveness of the Electrowave park-and-ride service and to our 
City's interconnection with a 21st-Century east-west multimodal 
transportation corridor.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Beverly Jones, Member of the Board of Directors, 
                      National Easter Seal Society
    Mr. Chairman, I am Beverly Jones, a member of the National Easter 
Seal Society Board of Directors. I am pleased to submit this testimony 
to the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee on behalf of 
the National Easter Seal Society in support of fiscal year 1999 Project 
ACTION funding. I am supporting this important Easter Seal program for 
many reasons.
    I am the mother of two teenagers, a full time court stenographer 
and part-time model, an avid tennis player and a national spokesperson 
for people with disabilities. In September 1984, I was involved in a 
car accident that resulted in a spinal cord injury. In that instant, my 
life changed as I realized that many of the common daily activities 
that I had taken for granted now presented significant challenges. I 
turned to Easter Seals in my home state of Tennessee and they steered 
me in a direction that gained me greater independence.
    I was fortunate to be selected as the 1997 Easter Seal Adult 
Representative and to travel the country to talk about the 
contributions that people with disabilities can make to society. As the 
Adult Representative, I spoke about the work of Easter Seals and issues 
of importance to children and adults with disabilities. I am committed 
to breaking down negative stereotypes as well as attitudinal and 
physical barriers that confront people with disabilities so that we can 
live with equality, dignity and independence.
    During my year as the National Easter Seal Society Adult 
Representative, I had the opportunity to testify before the House 
Transportation Appropriation subcommittee in support of funding for 
Project ACTION and to submit testimony to the Senate for their 
consideration. I was thrilled to play a small role in helping to raise 
the awareness of Congress to the transit needs of people with 
disabilities was very empowering. We were pleased when the Senate 
Transportation Appropriations subcommittee approved the fully 
authorized amount of $2.0 million in fiscal year 1998 money.
    In part because of my successful experience working with Easter 
Seals on legislative activities, I was nominated to the Board of 
Directors of the National Easter Seal Society and serve on the 
committee that helps Easter Seals establish its legislative priorities. 
Seeking continued funding so that Project ACTION can continue to 
promote transit accessibility remains one of our core objectives.
    In the past, this subcommittee has heard from transit providers how 
important Project ACTION is to local communities that are working to 
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In my statement 
I want to emphasize how important the work of Project ACTION is to 
people with disabilities. On the local level, I serve as the county 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator. This brings me in 
contact with numerous individuals with disabilities and I've come to 
understand how important access to transportation is for Americans with 
disabilities. In short, it allows them to work and remain independent. 
By and large people with disabilities want equality and equal 
opportunity. It angers me when I see people with disabilities portrayed 
as people who want special treatment.
    As society becomes more accessible and as attitudinal barriers 
continue to fall, we must make sure that our transportation systems 
maintain the pace toward full accessibility. The availability of 
accessible transportation remains a key determinant to securing 
employment for many disabled Americans. We live in an increasingly 
mobile society: to be employed today means to commute. Imagine if you 
or your staff had to conduct your daily activities without access to 
any form of public transportation.
    The efforts of this subcommittee make a tremendous difference in 
the everyday lives of people with disabilities all across America 
because people with disabilities as a group tend to be heavily 
dependent on public forms of transportation. There are some 25 million 
transit dependent people with disabilities in America today. Without 
access to transportation, these citizens cannot benefit from the 
promise of full participation in society that Congress envisioned when 
you passed the ADA.
    In recent years we have made tremendous progress and accessibility 
is increasing nationwide: fixed-route bus fleet accessibility has grown 
to nearly 75 percent; rail station access has increased; and, most 
importantly, the disability and transit communities have learned to 
work together to promote cooperative solutions instead of meeting only 
in street protests and in costly courtroom battles. Project ACTION is 
the singular, most positive force bringing the transit and disability 
communities together. We continue to believe that this cooperative 
approach is the best hope for continued progress toward a fully 
accessible society.
    Project ACTION is authorized under ISTEA at $2.0 million per year 
and has received full funding during the appropriations process each 
year since 1991. The National Easter Seal Society is working with the 
House and Senate committee leadership to continue and expand Project 
ACTION as a part of the ISTEA reauthorization process and is hopeful 
that, upon final passage, the authorization level that supports Project 
ACTION efforts will be substantially increased.
    The National Easter Seal Society is seeking an appropriation of 
$3.0 million for fiscal year 1999. There is a compelling reason to seek 
this increase. The demand for Project ACTION expertise is increasing 
exponentially. Transit providers are demanding direct and ongoing 
technical assistance to meet ADA requirements in a cost-effective 
manner. Many of the solutions to transportation accessibility issues 
have already been developed through Project ACTION-sponsored research 
and demonstration programs. Project ACTION now needs sufficient funds 
to disseminate these resources and to help implement these cost-
effective solutions in communities across the nation.
    The costs of running a national ADA technical assistance operation 
are substantial and growing rapidly. Calls, faxes, e-mails and requests 
for direct and immediate technical assistance have grown dramatically 
in the last three years. Last quarter, Project ACTION received over 
1,500 calls for direct technical assistance alone. As Project ACTION 
has marketed its services to stakeholders and had successes solving 
local ADA concerns, requests for the Project's assistance have grown. 
Because of the phase-in of ADA transportation requirements, many 
transit systems are just now facing difficult and sometimes costly ADA 
requirements. Transit systems that are currently in compliance need 
ongoing technical support to remain in compliance.
    With the support of this subcommittee, Project ACTION has become 
the nation's foremost resource on transportation accessibility. Since 
this subcommittee established Project ACTION, it has sponsored 
innovative research, funded demonstration projects, provided technical 
assistance to thousands of transit providers, and developed an 
impressive resource center with information on the most cost-effective 
ways to achieve accessibility. The Director of Project ACTION, Nancy 
Smith, has a concrete plan for using the vast experience and expertise 
that the Project has developed to continue to find the best and the 
least expensive ways for transit providers to meet their ADA 
obligations.
    On behalf of the millions of people with disabilities who rely on 
public transit and the transit operators working to serve them, the 
National Easter Seal Society wants to thank this subcommittee for its 
past support of Project ACTION. The National Easter Seal Society 
respectfully requests this subcommittee to provide $3.0 million dollars 
to continue to fund Project ACTION in fiscal year 1999. This funding 
level will ensure that Project ACTION can continue to develop and 
disseminate workable solutions to the most critical issues facing 
transit operators as they implement the ADA.
    We understand the fiscal constraints under which this subcommittee 
operates. However, Project ACTION is a credible, cost-effective, and 
creative program that has strong support among people with disabilities 
and their national representatives, transit providers, the American 
Public Transit Administration and within the Federal Transit 
Administration. This spirit of cooperation would not be possible 
without the leadership of this subcommittee. Easter Seals is grateful 
for your support and we look forward to continued collaboration.
    Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 

Prepared Statement of Robert H. Tucker, Jr., Chairman, Regional Transit 
                               Authority

    Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to the 
subcommittee on behalf of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of New 
Orleans and Jefferson Parish. The Regional Transit Authority is 
requesting funding for four major transit projects.
    Before explaining the requests, the Regional Transit Authority 
extends its sincerest appreciation to the members of this subcommittee 
for the support demonstrated towards its requests for the last fiscal 
year. As you may recall, upon enactment, the Fiscal Year 1998 
Transportation Appropriations Bill included $9,000,000 for RTA's buses 
and facilities from Louisiana's $13,900,000 statewide bus 
appropriation, $6 million for the Canal Streetcar Project and $2 
million for the Desire Streetcar Project. We are very grateful to the 
subcommittee for its role in providing that critical funding.
    For fiscal year 1999, the Regional Transit Authority is requesting 
federal funding for the following projects:
  --$113,000,000 for the Canal Streetcar Project
  --$32,000,000 for RTA's lease/maintenance program
  --$41,600,000 for the return of the Desire Streetcar
  --$8,000,000 for the RTA Central Maintenance Facility
                        canal streetcar project
    The Canal Street corridor project will restore light rail transit 
service to the city's most important transit corridor. For fiscal year 
1999, the Regional Transit Authority is requesting $113,000,00 of FTA 
section 5309 (formerly section 3) new start rail funding to construct 
the project.
    The project completed the major investment analysis phase in the 
fall of 1995 and the environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed 
in August of 1997. The FTA issued the favorable ``Record of Decision'' 
on August 28, 1997. Currently, the project is about to enter into final 
design. Construction is expected to begin in the mid--late 1999.
    The total value of the Canal Streetcar Project, including the 
proposed city park spur, is approximately $181 million. To date, 
Congress has appropriated $32.5 million towards the project.
    The Canal Street corridor connects with 70 percent of the Regional 
Transit Authority's 62 transit lines and seven suburban routes. In the 
future, the route could connect with Amtrak and the local greyhound bus 
terminal at the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal.
    The streetcar's track will be placed primarily within existing 
medians which will allow the RTA to remove buses from the currently 
congested traffic stream. The EIS analysis predicts 20 percent growth 
of ridership over the 18,000 per day currently utilizing the bus 
service within the corridor.
    In a major effort to reduce the overall cost and scope of the 
project, the RTA has implemented two strategies, both during 
construction and operation:
    First, the canal streetcar track will match the recently regauged 
track of the Riverfront streetcar which now matches that of the 
historic St. Charles streetcar line. The common gauge will allow the 
RTA to use the existing Carrollton streetcar facility of the St. 
Charles streetcar as a heavy duty maintenance facility for all three 
lines as well as the proposed Desire line. Thus, the RTA will avoid the 
cost of duplicating a similar facility. However, a separate storage and 
inspection facility for daily maintenance and cleaning of the 
streetcars will be built due to capacity constraints at Carrollton.
    The second part of the strategy will be to assemble the streetcars 
in New Orleans by the RTA technicians and craftsmen whom recently built 
seven streetcars for the revamped Riverfront streetcar line. The RTA 
will be able to save approximately $400,000-$600,000 per vehicle by 
taking this approach. Estimates are that for an outside firm to bid on 
the streetcars, which are a one-of-a-kind design, it would cost the 
taxpayer anywhere from $1.6 to $1.8 per vehicle. RTA approximates its 
costs at $1 million to $1.2 million. As well as building the seven 
Riverfront cars, the Carrollton shop recently overhauled the entire 36 
car St. Charles fleet. This facility and its workers are uniquely 
suited to construct the canal streetcars competently and economically. 
Furthermore, with RTA employees assembling the new streetcars, the 
quality of the cars will be ensured by drawing from their expertise 
maintaining the existing fleet.
    The streetcars will be basically replicas of the venerable, and no 
longer available, Perley Thomas type that now traverses the St. Charles 
line. However, the canal cars will be ADA accessible and air 
conditioned.
                       lease/maintenance program
    As its highest priority request under the FTA bus and bus facility 
program, the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), is seeking $32,000,000 
representing three years of payments under its innovative lease/
maintenance program recently approved in-concept by the Federal Transit 
Administration. This new program will allow the RTA to enter into a 
lease and maintenance agreement with a commercial leasing company for 
the lease and maintenance of 75 new buses and 100 near new buses. The 
agreement will also allow the RTA to benefit from the recent changes 
that allow for the treatment of maintenance costs under a lease as an 
eligible capital expense. Penske Truck Leasing, through the RTA's RFP 
selection process, will be the lessor of the buses as well as provide 
for the maintenance of the buses. The financing will be by ABN-AMRO.
    With 451 vehicles, the RTA operates the largest system in Louisiana 
by providing service to nearly 180,000 riders per day in a city that is 
20 percent transit dependent. The buses leased will significantly 
reduce the operating expenses of the RTA and enhance its ability to 
provide dependable service.
    This request, as well as the central maintenance facility request 
that follows, is once again a part of the fiscal year 1999 Louisiana 
statewide request for FTA bus program funding. That effort is led by 
RTA staff and is coordinated through the Louisiana Public Transit 
Association. We hope our cooperative attempt will yield additional 
support once more to benefit the state's other transit systems as well 
as the RTA.
                         desire streetcar line
    The RTA is requesting $41,600,000 of FTA section 5309 new start 
funds to restore much of the 4 mile route of the fabled Streetcar Named 
Desire through some of New Orleans oldest and historic neighborhoods. 
The project is about to enter the major investment study phase by May 
of 1998. Congress has appropriated $4 million of FTA new start funding 
to the project.
    The proposed Desire streetcar line will allow the RTA to 
consolidate a number of bus routes away from the historically and 
structurally sensitive French Quarter. The line is expected to improve 
the overall efficiency of the RTA system by allowing for higher 
operating speeds and shorter travel time for buses now forced to use 
congested French Quarter streets. The Desire streetcar will provide 
direct service to the French Quarter, Faubourg Marigny and Bywater 
neighborhoods which are otherwise inaccessible to regular transit 
service. In addition, the line will serve two major defense facilities; 
the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center and the Navy's F. Edward Hebert 
Defense Complex.
                      central maintenance facility
    As its second highest priority under the FTA section 5309 (formerly 
section 3) bus program, the RTA is requesting $8,000,000 to continue 
progress on its heavy duty central maintenance facility (CMF). The 
$15,268,000 project is now in the architectural design stage. This 
request is also a component of the cooperative statewide request.
    The current outdated facility was originally scheduled for 
demolition in the fall of 1995, but was postponed due to site selection 
delays and until construction of a new CMF was assured. This project 
will relocate and rebuild the RTA's only heavy bus maintenance 
facility. The present facility, which undertakes extensive repairs such 
as, engine and transmission change out as well as major component and 
body rebuilds, has been deemed inadequate and obsolete for the systems 
maintenance needs. The existing site is not conducive to an efficient, 
long-term approach to maintain an active and aging bus fleet. The new 
facility will help RTA to further reduce its operating expenses.
                     transit program appropriations
    The regional transit authority urges and requests that Congress 
appropriates to the highest levels possible under the terms authorized 
under the future ISTEA legislation. While not complete at the time of 
this statement, both the Senate and House versions of the renewed ISTEA 
are showing increased levels of funding for transit--increases that are 
sorely need by all of transit. The RTA sincerely hopes that Congress 
follows through on that promise by appropriating to the levels 
authorized.
    Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on 
behalf of the regional transit authority.
    For your reference, attached you will find additional information 
on the RTA and its requests.

                       Administration of Services

                              rta history
    The Regional Transit Authority is a political subdivision created 
by the Louisiana State Legislature in 1979. After taking over the 
operation of bus and streetcar service in 1983, the RTA expanded 
service to the city of Kenner in 1985. The service presently consists 
of 62 bus lines, the St. Charles Streetcar line, and the Riverfront 
Streetcar line.
                                purpose
    The main purposes of the RTA are to develop a regional transit 
plan, maintain a permanent funding source for transit in the 
metropolitan New Orleans area and be responsible for the operation of 
the regional transit system. The primary goal of the Regional RTA is to 
provide comprehensive, efficient regional transit service, designed to 
meet the needs of the communities it serves.
                         board of commissioners
    The Regional Transit Authority is governed by a board of 
commissioners appointed by the member parishes of Orleans and 
Jefferson. Of the eight-member board, five are from Orleans Parish and 
three are from Jefferson Parish. The board of commissioners establishes 
the policies and procedures for the RTA. Meetings are held on the 
second Tuesday of each month. Members of the RTA Board of Commissioners 
are: Chairman Robert H. Tucker, Jr., Orleans Parish; Daniel Alfortish, 
Jefferson Parish; Ronald Gardner, Orleans Parish; Dennis A. DiMarco, 
Jefferson Parish; Nat LaCour, Orleans Parish; Charlotte Burnell, 
Jefferson Parish; Earline Roth, Orleans Parish; LeRoy Bailey, General 
Manager of TMSEL. There is currently one vacancy on the RTA Board of 
Commissioners.
                         day-to-day operations
    Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, a private corporation, 
is contracted to oversee the day-to-day operations of the transit 
administration.
    Bus and streetcar drivers are members of Amalgamated Transit Union, 
Local 1560. Dispatchers, Scheduling Clerks, Transit Tellers, and 
Transit Instructors are members of Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 
1611. Maintenance workers are members of the International Brotherhood 
of Electrical Workers, Local 1700-4.
                          Summary Profile Data

                         Operational Statistics

Fleet Size:
    Buses...............................................             371
    Streetcars..........................................              41
    Paratransit Vehicles................................              40
Average Fleet Age:
    Years for buses.....................................             7.1
    Years for streetcars................................              74
Vehicle Usage:
    Buses and streetcars on AM peak.....................             323
    PM peak.............................................             343
    Non-peak............................................             152
Number of Routes........................................              62
Vehicle Miles (millions)................................              12
Annual Vehicle Hours (millions).........................             1.1
Passengers Carried Daily................................         190,000
Passengers Carried Weekly (million).....................             1.3
Passengers Carried Annually (million)...................              70
1996 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons)..........................       3,730,381
1996 Gasoline Fuel Use (gallons)........................         125,015

                              Employee Data

Total Number of Employees......................................... 1,232
Operators.........................................................   674
Maintenance.......................................................   337
Administration....................................................   221

                     Financial Data (CY 1998 Budget)

Total Operating Expenses................................     $72,612,928

                 Fiscal Year 1999 Congressional Requests

Canal Streetcar Corridor:
    Authorization.......................................    $145,000,000
    Appropriations......................................     112,500,000
Desire Streetcar:
    Authorization.......................................      45,600,000
    Appropriations......................................      41,600,000
Central Maintenance Facility: Appropriations............       8,000,000
Lease/Maintenance Program (3 years): Appropriations.....      32,000,000
                         canal street corridor
    Scope.--Reinstatement of Light Rail/Streetcar service to the Canal 
Street Corridor of New Orleans. The 4.15 mile (8.3 round trip) line 
will extend from the New Orleans riverfront at the Mississippi to the 
Mid City neighborhood.
    Funding.--$144,967,740 of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New 
Start authorization is requested for the project. To date, $32,573,000 
of FTA New Start funds have been obtained through Congressional 
appropriations.
    ISTEA authorized $4.8 million for alternative analysis, preliminary 
engineering and an environmental impact statement in 1992.
    Matching funds of $24,800,000 are being sought through the State of 
Louisiana Capital Outlay process for this vital transportation 
infrastructure project.
    Total.--$181,209,700 Project Total.
    Statement.--The return of light rail service to downtown New 
Orleans will promote economic development and significantly reduce 
congestion and auto emissions. Streetcar service will enhance access to 
major state investments, such as the Louisiana Superdome, the 
Convention Center, the LSU/Tulane Medical District, and the proposed 
arena. 30 diesel fueled vehicles will be removed from this corridor 
once streetcar service is restored. Ridership on the streetcar is 
anticipated to exceed the current bus count of 20,000 by an additional 
18,000 passengers.
    Status.--This project has completed Major Investment Analysis 
(MIA). Corridor selection, the approval of the Locally Preferred 
Alternative (LPA), was made on March 28, 1995. Preliminary engineering 
and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was completed in May of 
1997. The final EIS was completed in August of 1997 with the Record of 
Decision issued soon thereafter. Final Design will be underway this 
Spring.
    Construction is projected to begin in 1999 with the line opening in 
the year 2001. Included will be innovative project cost savings 
proposals, including the regauging of the Riverfront line and the 
proposed Canal Street line to utilize an existing heavy maintenance 
facility, and the assembly of the streetcars locally.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.005

                          transaction summary
        the regional transit authority lease/maintenance program
    The Regional Transit Authority of New Orleans, Louisiana (the 
``RTA'') desires to enter into a lease/maintenance agreement with a 
commercial leasing company for the lease and maintenance of 75 new 
buses and 100 near new buses. The RTA will structure the lease 
utilizing Federal Transit Administration (the ``FTA'') regulations, 
Capital Leases--49 CFR 639. The RTA has undertaken the Determination of 
Cost-Effectiveness pursuant to CFR Sections 639.21, 639.23 and 639.25. 
The RTA's objective is to benefit from the treatment of maintenance 
costs under a lease as an eligible capital expense.
Scenario One--New Buses
    PENSKE Truck Leasing Company (the ``Lessor'') has been selected 
through an RFP selection process to provide the RTA with 175 new buses 
under a lease/maintenance agreement. Under the terms of the agreement 
the Lessor will lease the buses to the RTA as well as provide the 
maintenance on the buses. For State law purposes, the term of the lease 
will be for one year, to end on the last day of the RTA's fiscal year, 
December 31. At the expiration of the initial term, the Lease shall 
automatically be extended upon appropriation by the RTA's Board of 
amounts sufficient to pay lease payments. It is the expectation of the 
RTA and of the Lessor that the agreement will extend for 12 years. The 
purchase of the 175 buses will be financed by ABN-AMRO at an estimated 
interest rate of 6.35 percent.
Scenario Two--Near New Buses
    In late 1996, the RTA purchased 100 new Orion Buses and 6 new 
Chance Buses. To take advantage of FTA Innovative Financing Techniques, 
the RTA proposes to sell the ``near new'' Orion buses to the Lessor. 
Under the terms of a lease/maintenance agreement, the RTA will then 
lease the near new buses from the Lessor. The term of the lease will be 
as described above in Scenario One. This transaction differs from 
Scenario One because we propose to use the proceeds from the sale of 
the buses to make lease payments over the remaining life of the buses 
or 11 years. To that end, we will deposit the proceeds in an escrow 
account at an interest rate sufficient to make lease payments over the 
life of the buses. This arrangement is expected to yield an additional 
$1.0 million up front. The escrow would be set up so that no additional 
FTA moneys would be required nor RTA local match. The purchase of the 
106 buses will be financed by ABN-AMRO.
        central maintenance facility--relocation/reconstruction
    Scope.--Design and construct a replacement heavy repair facility 
for the RTA bus fleet. The current facility was deemed inadequate and 
obsolete and is to be demolished in order to complete the redevelopment 
of the Canal Maintenance Facility.
    Funding.--$12,214,400 of Federal Transit Administration Section 3 
Bus/Bus Facility Program was requested for fiscal year 1996. $3,000,000 
was appropriated in fiscal year 1996. Additional funding was put 
towards the project from the total $9,000,000 appropriated to New 
Orleans in fiscal year 1997, thus making this request for fiscal year 
1999 $8,000,000.
    The $3,053,600 of local match will be provided by the Regional 
Transit Authority.
    Total.--$15,268,000.
    Statement.--Replacement of the Central Maintenance Facility has 
become the highest priority for the Regional Transit Authority's 
maintenance efforts. The facility will be key to such heavy duty 
repairs as engine and transmission change-outs, major component 
rebuilds, body repair, central parts storeroom and maintenance 
training. Once the former facility is demolished as part of the Canal 
Maintenance Facility redevelopment, major repairs will be required to 
be made temporarily at another RTA facility where conditions will 
obviously not be conducive to permanent location. Most importantly, the 
construction of the Central Maintenance Facility will allow RTA to 
consolidate and close at least one other major facility, thus allowing 
the RTA to reduce overall operating expenses.
    Status.--Site evaluation and appraisals are complete. Design has 
commenced. The current Central Maintenance Facility at Canal Street is 
scheduled for demolition upon assurances of the funding and 
construction of a new CMF.
                 desire streetcar line--reconstruction
    Scope.--Design and reconstruct the fabled Streetcar Named Desire 
route as the major transit artery it once was. Utilizing the venerable 
Royal and Bourbon/Dauphine Streets, the four mile (8 miles round-trip) 
line would travel through the historic New Orleans neighborhoods of 
Bywater, Faubourg Marigny and the Vieux Carre (the French Quarter). The 
route was ``rediscovered'' when investigating the possible downriver 
extension of the Riverfront Streetcar line which was scrapped due to 
poor ridership projections.
    Funding.--$45,600,000 in authorization and funding is requested 
from the Federal Transit Administration Section 3 New Start program 
through Congressional legislation.
    The $13,400,000 of local match remains to be identified.
    In fiscal year 1997, $2,000,000 was appropriated to conduct the 
required Desire Corridor Major Investment Study. Another $2 million was 
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
    Total.--$57,000,000.
    Statement.--This proposed line should deliver a much higher and 
effective level of transit service to the French Quarter, Faubourg 
Marigny and Bywater neighborhoods than exists presently. It will allow 
the removal of all transit vehicles from the historically and 
structurally sensitive French Quarter while providing direct CBD 
service to/from two major defense facilities located at the far end of 
the line along the Industrial Canal. The line is expected to improve 
the overall efficiency of the system by allowing higher operating 
speeds and shorter travel time for buses forced to utilize congested 
French Quarter streets.
    Status.--RTA will begin the Major Investment Study in the Spring of 
1998.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.006

                                 ______
                                 

  Prepared Statement of the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

                              introduction
    The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) appreciates 
the opportunity afforded by the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations to present testimony in support of its 
project initiatives for transportation appropriations in federal fiscal 
year 1999. The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) is a 
regional multi-modal transportation authority responsible for air, 
water and surface transportation in Erie and Niagara Counties. NFTA 
businesses include a bus and rail system, a paratransit system, two 
international airports, a small boat harbor and transportation centers 
in Buffalo and Niagara Falls.
    In support of its transportation mission, the NFTA respectfully 
requests your consideration of the following transportation 
appropriations requests in fiscal year 1999. The appropriation requests 
are described in the following narrative.
                         project appropriations
Federal Transit Administration Bus Capital
    Appropriate $6 million for HUBLINK, the NFTA Transit Restructuring 
Program.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program
    Appropriate $21 million under the FAA Airport Improvement Program 
to permit the acquisition and demolition of the Buffalo Airport Center.
                                hublink
    As reported last year, Metro, the NFTA's public transit business 
center, is working to meet the difficult financial challenges that 
impact the viability of the transit system. Fundamental changes in the 
demographic characteristics of Western New York have altered 
transportation patterns in and around the urban area that have been 
prevalent for nearly 50 years. Population shifts to the suburbs have 
occurred but, for the first time, the loss of population in the central 
city has been accompanied by a similar migration of business activity 
as well. Thus, Metro is faced with a changing market of potential 
transit riders. Metro's current service radiates out from the Central 
Business District (CBD) to suburban areas and primarily meets that 
traditional travel demand. In order to be competitive, Metro needed to 
redesign its system to meet the changing demands for service.
    A strategic business planning effort that recognized changing 
demographic characteristics for both population distribution and 
employment spawned the need to restructure local transportation 
services. Furthermore, these changing demographic patterns are not 
unique to Western New York. Across the country, we see the movement of 
jobs and population to the suburban areas. We think our project 
provides a national model to meet the changing transportation needs 
that result from this movement.
    HUBLINK, the term coined for the transit restructuring program, is 
a comprehensive coordinated public transportation system designed to 
provide enhanced mobility throughout Western New York. Through enhanced 
mobility, HUBLINK can achieve the objective of connecting people to 
jobs and providing taxpayers with more value for their tax dollar. 
HUBLINK marshals available resources in a new, comprehensive transit 
solution for the twenty-first century.
    The Goals of The HUBLINK Project focus on: Jobs, value for tax 
dollars, and quality of life.
    During the past year, technical work has been completed to develop 
a new mobility plan for Metro. Plan implementation has begun. A 
description of the plan follows.
                           the mobility plan
    The HUBLINK transportation system is designed to meet the needs of 
individuals throughout Western New York including job seekers seeking 
access to employment outside of the urban core, suburban residents 
traveling between communities, individuals with disabilities and senior 
citizens. The HUBLINK system builds upon existing service and further 
offers services in urban, suburban and rural areas tailored to each 
areas specific needs. A key feature of HUBLINK is a series of 
strategically placed transit centers or HUBS. The HUBS will offer 
convenient transfer points between transportation modes to improve 
access and mobility. HUBLINK is designed to provide taxpayers with the 
maximum value for their tax dollars, through the efficient coordination 
of multiple programs and by encouraging more ridership on the bus and 
rail system.
    The system consists of three interconnecting and complementary 
service networks described below:
                        regional service network
    The regional service network is designed to serve travel in the 
urban core of the region and long distance travel across the region. 
These travel needs can be served efficiently with current modes of 
transit. The traditional transit components of this network are urban 
bus service, rail service, regional fixed bus service and paratransit 
service. Enhanced reverse commute services and employer based service 
would be added or enhanced as needed. The construction of up to 24 
HUBS, some with transit centers and park and ride facilities is 
envisioned. Supporting elements such as bicycle and pedestrian access 
would complete this network.
                         local services network
    The HUBLINK plan calls for a variety of small bus or van services 
to provide for local trips and feeder/distribution service to and from 
hubs in lower density area of the region. NFTA will fund a portion of 
the cost of these services. Local municipalities, human service 
agencies and private companies will contribute the balance of the 
funding to provide the service. This program will permit localities to 
select service options tailored to their individual service needs. For 
suburban service, the options include local circulator service and 
employment center shuttles. For low population density rural areas, 
options include demand responsive service and volunteer ridesharing.
                     coordination services network
    The coordination network consists of a variety of transportation 
services provided by public and private providers. These include human 
service agencies and educational institutions. The HUBLINK plan 
proposes a more efficient utilization of existing resources through 
voluntary collaboration. To facilitate this collaboration, a Mobility 
Coordinator is envisioned to manage the network to maximize service 
availability, improve efficiency, minimize duplication, and close gaps 
in the current service.
    The HUBLINK system will integrate a variety of traditional and non-
traditional modes of transportation. A seamless means of fare 
collection is necessary to facilitate the integration. Passengers must 
be able to easily transfer from one carrier to another at the various 
transit hubs that will make up the system. To this end, NFTA is 
undertaking a fare collection study to determine system needs. The 
study will determine the appropriate fare structure and optimal 
technology. A system that employs swipe card technology is under 
serious consideration. Swipe cards, similar to pre-paid cards used in 
other businesses, may be interfaced with other transportation 
facilities such as parking ramps and toll booths. Swipe cards have been 
used successfully in transportation systems application nationally and 
we believe the technology can succeed for our system, as well.
    HUBLINK requires a new fare collection system to replace the 
Metrobus fare collection system which is outmoded from both technical 
and marketing perspectives. Metro is cannibalizing equipment to 
maintain the existing system, only possible because our peak bus fleet 
requirements have decreased. A new system will afford accurate revenue 
and passenger counts, necessary for system performance measurement. 
Also, new technology is easier to maintain and more customer friendly, 
and passenger convenience can enhance ridership. The procurement of a 
new fare collection system for Metro is needed to maintain existing 
transit infrastructure, as well as to support the HUBLINK system. The 
new fare collection system is scheduled for procurement in fiscal year 
1999.
    The implementation of the HUBLINK system is planned over six years, 
beginning in 1998-99 and ending in 2003-04. The phases correspond to 
geographic areas that will be integrated into the system. The phases 
were established as a result of demand estimation and community 
interest in supporting and using HUBLINK services.
    The total capital cost of the implementation of the HUBLINK and 
fare collection systems is estimated at $46 million between 1999 and 
2004. Capital costs include $20 million for the construction and 
upgrade of transit hubs, $19 million for the purchase of vehicles, $5 
million for a replacement fare collection system, and $2 million for 
customer information systems and start-up expenditures.
                           legislative action
    At this time to further HUBLINK implementation, NFTA seeks a $6 
million bus capital appropriation within the fiscal year 1999 
transportation appropriations to support capital expenditures 
including: upgrading two transit hubs, the procurement of 10 transit 
vehicles, information systems network hardware, data input, and 
customer information displays, and a replacement fare collection 
system.
                 buffalo niagara international airport
    The second initiative for which we seek funding consideration from 
the transportation appropriations committee concerns improvements to 
alleviate safety limitations at the Buffalo Niagara International 
Airport.
    Phase I of Master Plan improvements at the Greater Buffalo 
International Airport consisted of the $157.7 million Airport 
Improvement Program. Phase I improvements included the construction of 
a new terminal, roadway system, airside improvements, and parking 
structure. These facilities were opened on November 3, 1997. The new 
airport was renamed the Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BNIA) to 
reflect recognition of the entire Western New York region.
    Certain elements of the airport improvement program, namely the 
acquisition and demolition of the Buffalo Airport Center (BAC), 
formerly the Westinghouse plant, and Runway 14/32 safety improvements, 
were deferred to Phase II. These projects would remove safety 
constraints on airside operations and facilitate long term airport 
development needs.
    Now that Phase I improvements are nearly complete, the NFTA is 
focusing on the completion of Phase II of the Airport Improvement 
Program. Property acquisition is justified as a safety improvement to 
Runway 14/32. Acquisition and subsequent demolition of the BAC property 
will remove a safety area obstruction and operational limitations on 
Runway 14/32. Furthermore, safety area improvements to Runway 14/32, 
included in the BNIA Master Plan for implementation after the 
acquisition and demolition of the BAC, can be undertaken. These 
improvements will afford the continuation of existing airport 
operations during future rehabilitation of main Runway 5/23.
                           legislative action
    NFTA seeks a fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriation in the 
amount of $21 million under the FAA Airport Improvement Program to 
permit the acquisition and demolition of the Buffalo Airport Center.
                                 ______
                                 

   Prepared Statement of Paul P. Skoutelas, Executive Director, Port 
             Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA

    Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to 
submit testimony on behalf of Port Authority of Allegheny County, the 
principal public transportation provider in the Pittsburgh urbanized 
area. Port Authority carries 75 million public transportation riders 
annually within a 730 square mile area through a variety of services 
including bus, busway, light rail, incline, and the nation's largest 
specialized paratransit system.
    As Executive Director of Port Authority of Allegheny County, it is 
my privilege to present this testimony regarding Port Authority's 
request for fiscal year 1999 transportation earmarks for the Stage II 
light rail transit project, a major component of Port Authority's 
``rail 21'' program, and for the purchase of buses. The ``rail 21'' 
program is comprised of several different rail projects including Port 
Authority's Stage II light rail transit project and the Northshore/CBD 
fixed guideway project.
    Port Authority is requesting $100 million of section 5309 ``new 
start'' funds for the Stage II project in fiscal year 1999. Port 
Authority is also requesting a section 5309 ``bus/bus facility'' 
earmark of $30 million to be used to acquire approximately 125 buses in 
fiscal year 1999. Procurement of new buses will enable Port Authority 
to continue modernizing its fleet and ensure the continuation of 
transit service to its customers.
                          rail ``21'' program
Light rail transit Stage II system
    Port Authority's light rail transit system, also known as the 
``T'', is a twenty-five mile light rail transit system serving the city 
of Pittsburgh and the South Hills communities of Allegheny County.
    The South Hills light rail system, part of an extensive trolley 
network formerly operated by the Pittsburgh Railways Company and its 
predecessors, was acquired by Port Authority in 1964. Between 1980 and 
1987, Port Authority completely reconstructed 10.5 miles of the system, 
a project referred to as Stage I.
    Stage I entailed construction of the downtown Pittsburgh subway and 
rehabilitation of Port Authority's Panhandle Bridge over the 
Monongahela River, modernization of the old trolley line to South Hills 
Village via Beechview and Mount Lebanon, construction of the Mount 
Lebanon transit tunnel, reconstruction of the Allentown line, 
construction of a new rail car maintenance facility and operations 
control center and purchase of fifty-five articulated and air-
conditioned light rail cars. Also included was the completion of the 
2.5 mile Allentown line in 1992.
    The Stage II light rail transit system which was designated a ``new 
start'' project in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Assistance Act 
of 1991 (ISTEA) involves the reconstruction of twelve and one-half 
miles of the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley lines to modern 
light rail standards. The environmental assessment for the project was 
completed in 1993 and preliminary engineering will be completed in 
April 1998. Rebuilding the three lines on their existing alignments 
includes double-tracking the Overbrook line, replacing bridges, 
stabilizing slopes, adding retaining walls, constructing new stops and 
stations, and installing signal, communications and electrical power 
systems. The Drake line would also be built to light rail standards. 
The Library line would be rebuilt on its existing right-of-way. 
Additionally, the acquisition of approximately twenty-seven new light 
rail vehicles is proposed, and approximately 2,400 new park and ride 
spaces will be added. It is projected there will be seven construction 
contracts, two procurement contracts and one contract for construction 
management services awarded during calendar 1998. The current project 
is estimated at a total of $492.8 million or $392.2 federal share.
                              bus purchase
    Port Authority is also requesting $30 million of section 5309 bus/
bus facility funds in the fiscal year 1999 transportation 
appropriations bill to be used toward the procurement of approximately 
125 buses. The new buses will replace buses which have completed their 
useful service lives and are eligible for retirement by virtue of age 
or mileage standards. The buses will be used in Port Authority's 
overall route network which serves 260,000 riders each day, or about 75 
million annually.
    It is our fervent desire that your subcommittee will continue 
increasing the overall level of investment in transportation 
infrastructure which is of national importance. Your subcommittee has 
enabled undercapitalized and physically deteriorated public 
transportation systems in our great cities, suburban communities, and 
rural areas to be rejuvenated. Further, this subcommittee has helped 
create an interstate highway system and airport network that is the 
envy of the world. Now, it is imperative that all levels of government 
continue to develop our transit and surface transportation networks.
    Finally, I want to thank you for your leadership and also the 
subcommittee for its past support and commitment to surface 
transportation programs, particularly, for those that affect public 
transportation.
    I look forward to an active and ongoing dialogue with the 
subcommittee in the coming years. I would be pleased to submit any 
additional information at this time as would be useful to the 
subcommittee.
                                 ______
                                 

Prepared Statement of Regional Transportation Commission, Clark County, 
                                   NV

                              introduction
    The Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada 
(RTC) is pleased to have the opportunity to present this testimony to 
the Subcommittee in support of our fiscal year 1999 funding requests.
    The RTC is a public entity created under the laws of the State of 
Nevada with the authority to operate a public transit system and 
administer a motor fuels tax to finance regional street and highway 
improvements. In addition, the RTC is the Metropolitan Planning 
Organization (MPO) for the Las Vegas Valley. As the public transit 
provider, the RTC operates Citizens Area Transit (CAT), a mass transit 
system that moves more than 3.5 million passengers a month and recovers 
nearly 50 percent of its operating and maintenance costs from the 
farebox.
    The RTC, acting as the public transit authority, requests that the 
Subcommittee give positive consideration to the four projects described 
in this testimony. Specifically, the RTC requests funding from Section 
5309 (formerly Section 3) in the amount of $6.5 million for PE and 
final design for a 5.2 mile initial operating segment of a fixed 
guideway system; $3.8 million for bus fleet expansion; $4.6 million for 
a Passenger Terminal facility; and $2.3 million for a CNG refueling 
facility. As shown in this testimony, these four projects are critical 
to the continued development of an intermodal transportation system 
capable of meeting the needs of the fastest growing transit system in 
the United States.
                            planning context
    Las Vegas Growth and Development.--The Las Vegas metropolitan area 
continues to experience explosive growth. While acknowledged 
internationally as a premier resort destination, the Las Vegas Valley 
also represents a community of over 1.3 million permanent residents. 
The economy of the Las Vegas Valley is characterized by a favorable 
business environment, a strong job market, an absence of a business and 
personal income tax, and a comparatively low property tax by national 
standards. This environment has fostered an era of extraordinary growth 
that, since 1990, has fueled the creation of over 150,000 new jobs and 
has witnessed the influx of over 400,000 new residents to the valley. 
Current projections indicate that population and employment will 
continue to increase, exceeding 2.0 million residents and 750,000 jobs 
by the year 2015.
    In addition to the strong residential community living in the 
Valley, Las Vegas continues to remain a world class resort destination 
which welcomed over 29 million visitors in 1997. With over 100,000 
hotel rooms available, the Las Vegas Resort Corridor offers a wide 
variety of recreational and entertainment opportunities, and 
unparalleled convention and meeting facilities. On any given day, the 
actual population of Las Vegas (defined as residents and tourists), 
exceeds 1.5 million persons. Ensuring adequate mobility is essential to 
maintaining a superior quality of life for residents and a pleasant 
visitor experience.
    The Resort Corridor of Las Vegas is, however, more than world 
renowned resorts. It also contains a broad array of land uses that are 
not typically associated with the public image of Las Vegas. For 
example, the northern boundary of the Resort Corridor includes a 
substantial section designated by the City of Las Vegas as a 
redevelopment area to which public investments are targeted for urban 
revitalization. In contrast, the southern area of the Resort Corridor 
includes office uses, health care, shopping and educational facilities 
(including UNLV and several elementary and middle schools).
    Although it covers only 10 percent of the land area of Las Vegas, 
over 50 percent of the regional employment is located within the Resort 
Corridor, while 93 percent of the area residents live outside the 
corridor. Current job densities in the Resort Corridor approximate 56 
jobs per acre. This is similar to the conditions that exist in the 
central business districts of Portland (OR), Sacramento, San Diego, St. 
Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Baltimore. All of these 
communities have determined that a fixed guideway system is an 
appropriate transportation investment and have committed substantial 
resources to the development and operation of fixed guideway systems.
    All of these activities contribute to the centrality of the Resort 
Corridor. In 1996, of the 4.0 million daily person trips made in the 
Las Vegas Valley, 63 percent were commuter trips focused on 
destinations in the Resort Corridor. The mixing of land uses coupled 
with the ever increasing scale of the community also contributes to the 
high levels of transit ridership experienced by CAT. More importantly, 
the continued rapid growth reinforces the attractiveness of a fixed 
guideway system as part of the transportation infrastructure and 
service fabric.
    Major Investment Study.--The extensive and sustained growth in the 
Las Vegas valley has created significant transportation challenges. In 
October of 1997, the RTC adopted a Major Investment Study (MIS) that 
identified four strategies designed to ensure that traffic congestion 
will not worsen over the next 20 years from levels currently 
experienced. The four strategies include: (1) construction of an 18 
mile fixed guideway system serving the Resort Corridor; (2) expansion 
of CAT fixed route service to 500 peak service buses; (3) initiation of 
a TDM/TSM program designed to incentivize transit in all of its forms 
and fund low cost traffic management projects, respectively; (4) 
completion of the Resort Corridor street and highway system by 
finishing nine roadway projects, including the construction of Resort 
Boulevard--a new collector-distributor parallel to Las Vegas Boulevard. 
Completion of all of these projects will ensure that Las Vegas 
taxpayers will continue to have timely access to their jobs, avoid the 
disruptive affects of continual road construction, reduce reliance on 
the Single Occupant Vehicle and foster the on-going efforts of the Las 
Vegas Valley to meet the mandates of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990.
    In light of the RTC's adopted MIS and the documented success of the 
CAT system, the RTC has four initiatives it has prioritized for transit 
discretionary funding in its Regional Transportation Plan and the 
Transportation Improvement Program adopted in January of 1998. These 
priorities include continued funding of Fixed Guideway preliminary 
engineering/final design, acquisition of rolling stock for CAT, 
construction of a Transfer Terminal Facility in the Resort Corridor and 
construction of a Compressed Natural Gas refueling station. Each of 
these projects as documented in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 
reflect the RTC's long term commitment to advance the usage of mass 
transit technologies as a means to effectively address growing commuter 
travel demands. In fact, with 63 percent of all valley wide trips 
either beginning, ending or traveling through the Resort Corridor, the 
RTC cannot continue to rely solely on roads or buses, but instead must 
act now to begin implementing all elements of the MIS.
    fixed guideway system--preliminary engineering and final design
    The CAT system represents a significant commitment by the RTC to 
address the travel needs of residents and visitors alike. However, as 
documented in the Resort Corridor MIS, a higher level of mass transit 
is clearly necessary in a city of 1.3 million. Despite the dramatic 
growth and expansion of CAT, the Las Vegas Valley continues to 
experience rising congestion levels, especially in the area known as 
the Resort Corridor. The expansion of the bus system can address some 
of these needs in the short term, but there is a limit to the number of 
buses that can be put on the streets and, in fact, in the number of 
streets and highways that can be built. The MIS illustrated that 
projected travel demands, if addressed only through road construction, 
would require the construction of 18 north-south and 20 east-west and 
arterial lanes through the Resort Corridor.
    The objective of the fixed guideway system is to provide residents 
and visitors with environmentally clean, cost effective public 
transportation services that will meet the dramatically increasing 
transportation needs of the Las Vegas Valley. The proposed fixed 
guideway system (depicted in Exhibit A) contains 18.4 miles of double 
track, elevated, automated guideway; providing service to 28 stations 
and three major terminal stations. The system includes a core system 
and an extension to McCarran International Airport. The core system 
consists of 15.6 miles of guideway, 25 stations and two major 
terminals. The cost for the full system is approximately $1.14 billion. 
To facilitate the design, construction, and operation of this project, 
the RTC is currently considering a turnkey procurement. The RTC is 
seeking an authorization of $225 million for Phase 1 of the project in 
the ISTEA legislation being developed by Congress, representing a 45 
percent Federal share over the proposed 5 year authorization period.
    The RTC has commenced initial preliminary engineering activity for 
a 5.2 mile initial operating segment referred to as Phase I (depicted 
in Exhibit B). The RTC received a fiscal year 1998 Section 5309 earmark 
for the fixed guideway project in the amount of $5 million. The RTC has 
submitted a grant application and LONP request for those funds, and, 
consistent with the agency's normal Federal grant cycle, anticipates 
receiving and beginning expenditure of those funds this summer. The RTC 
has also conducted a thorough analysis of vehicle technologies and is 
in the process of analyzing the appropriate technology for the system 
and developing vehicle specifications. The RTC next intends to proceed 
with more specific project definition and the Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (DEIS) on the entire 18 mile system. To this end, the 
RTC requests the sum of $6.5 million in Section 3 new start funding for 
the continuation of preliminary engineering and design for this 
project.
               citizens area transit--bus fleet expansion
    Citizens Area Transit (CAT) began service on December 5, 1992. At 
that time, CAT represented the largest single start-up of new bus 
service in North America. CAT has proven extraordinarily successful. 
Annual CAT ridership has grown from 14.9 million riders in 1993 to over 
41.0 million riders in 1997; a growth rate of over 175 percent in only 
5 short years. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the United 
States, but the CAT system is growing at a rate faster than the growth 
in the area's population, employment, hotel rooms, visitor volumes, 
airport passengers, vehicle miles traveled, and auto registrations in 
the same time period. While the CAT routes operating along Las Vegas 
Boulevard provide service to over 900,000 passengers per month, this 
accounts for only 25 percent of the total monthly ridership. Indeed, 
although the CAT route on Las Vegas Boulevard carries in excess of 67 
passengers per service hour, three of the CAT residential routes meet 
this relative passenger performance level as well (compared to the 
national average of 33.8 passengers per service hour). Clearly, many 
Las Vegas residents rely heavily on the CAT system to get to work, 
school, shopping, medical services and recreational facilities. 
Providing mass transit services throughout the Las Vegas Valley, CAT 
has become an essential element in the Las Vegas community.
    To respond to the burgeoning demand for transit services, the RTC 
has continually increased bus service. Since startup, total annual 
hours of revenue service have increased by 56.4 percent; from 585,134 
hours in 1993 to 915,451 in 1997. Similarly, annual vehicle miles have 
doubled; from 6,384,660 miles in 1993 to 12,771,276 miles in 1997. In 
October of 1997, the RTC instituted a 15 percent service increase upon 
receipt of 20 additional coaches, pushing annual service hours to over 
1 million hours of service. The CAT systems has successfully increased 
ridership while remaining operationally efficient. Costs per passenger 
have dropped consistently since startup, to approximately $1.15 per 
passenger. Meanwhile, the farebox recovery rate of CAT averages over 50 
percent, one of the highest farebox recovery rates in the nation. Some 
routes on heavily traveled corridors have a farebox recovery ratio of 
over 100 percent. In 1997, CAT was recognized by the American Public 
Transit Association (APTA) as the winner of the Outstanding Achievement 
Award--Bus System of the Year for the 151-600 bus category.
    Despite the CAT systems remarkable growth, the RTC has been unable 
to yet attain the service levels needed and desired by the riding 
public. To provide convenient access throughout the community, and 
establish transit as a viable option for motorists, the RTC adopted a 
minimum service goal of 30 minute frequency or better for all CAT 
routes. Since start-up, the RTC has continually worked toward achieving 
this goal and currently provides 30 minute frequencies or better on 51 
percent of the routes. However, the single largest constraint faced by 
the RTC to providing more service has been the availability of 
additional equipment. In 1997, CAT carried its considerable ridership 
of over 41 million passengers on a total fleet of only 215 coaches. 
When compared to other peer cities, CAT transports up to 3 times the 
number of passengers per vehicle. This passenger load factor is not 
sustainable over the long term in terms of the enormous demands placed 
on existing rolling stock, and makes expansion of the fleet size an 
absolute necessity.
    The RTC is currently preparing a procurement for 33 additional 
vehicles for expansion of the CAT fleet. However, even more vehicles 
will be needed to meet the ever growing demands for expanded services. 
To continue to expand CAT services, the RTC requests $3.8 million in 
Section 3 bus discretionary funds to purchase 14 additional vehicles 
which would be used to provide more frequent services on a number of 
heavily utilized routes. Consistent with past appropriations requests, 
the RTC will provide a substantial overmatch of 30 percent in local 
funding for these equipment purchases.
                    bus passenger transfer facility
    In December of 1997, the RTC opened its new Integrated Bus 
Maintenance Facility (IBMF), a 36.6 acre, $35 million state-of-the-art 
facility to house and maintain the CAT fixed route and paratransit 
fleets. This facility will serve as a national model for transit 
maintenance facilities. The RTC greatly appreciates the Federal 
appropriations which made this facility a reality. With the completion 
of the IBMF, the RTC is now in a position to concentrate on developing 
and improving passenger facilities for the many patrons of the CAT 
system.
    To ensure comfort and convenience for the passengers of the CAT 
system, the RTC plans to build a network of terminal/transfer 
facilities throughout the Las Vegas Valley. Terminal/transfer 
facilities will provide locations where passengers have the opportunity 
to easily transfer between routes, passengers have shelter from the 
elements, and coach operators have access to necessary amenities. In 
addition, terminal/transfer facilities will provide opportunities for a 
reasonable interface between fixed route and paratransit services. At 
this time, the CAT system currently has only one terminal/transfer 
facility in the downtown area, known as the Downtown Transportation 
Center (DTC), which was built in 1987 prior to the initiation of the 
CAT system. With the ever-increasing demands for additional services, 
there is a critical need for additional terminal/transfer facilities.
    The RTC has identified several areas throughout the Las Vegas 
Valley where facilities are being pursued, the most notable being in 
the South Resort Corridor area. In this area, the CAT system is 
currently utilizing private property as a transfer facility. Six CAT 
routes now converge on private property belonging to a hotel/casino at 
the southern end of the Las Vegas Strip. While the generosity of the 
property owners is appreciated, there are no conveniences or amenities 
dedicated to the riding public of the CAT system. The RTC has 
identified several sites that would support a South Resort Corridor 
Transit Center, and is moving forward with procuring a consultant to 
perform the necessary Environmental Assessment and design for a 
facility. In order to expediently move to construction of the facility, 
the sum of $4.6 million is requested in Section 3 bus discretionary 
funds for construction of this important facility.
                          cng fueling facility
    The dramatic growth in population and employment in Las Vegas has 
resulted in a tremendous increase in traffic congestion and a 
significant deterioration in regional air quality. Pursuant to the 
Clear Air Act of 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency has 
designated the Las Vegas airshed as a serious non-attainment area for 
carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10 (inhalable particulate matter; 10 microns 
or less). Transit is an essential element in the region's overall 
strategy to reduce traffic congestion and improve regional air quality. 
In its role as the MPO and transit operator, the RTC is constantly 
promoting additional methods to help improve air quality.
    When CAT paratransit services were initiated, the RTC mandated the 
entire paratransit fleet use an alternative fuel. The paratransit fleet 
consists of 120 vehicles which all use compressed natural gas (CNG) to 
help the RTC promote air quality standards. With this paratransit 
fleet, the RTC is currently the largest single sponsor of an 
alternative fuel fleet in the Las Vegas Valley. Currently, the RTC owns 
only 2 facilities throughout the Valley where these vehicles are 
fueled. It is the RTC's intention to build an additional satellite 
fueling facility for CNG fuel and for use in an electric power 
demonstration program. To fund this program, the RTC requests $2.3 
million in Section 3 bus discretionary funds for assistance in building 
this facility.
    In conclusion, the RTC is requesting the total sum of $10.7 million 
in Section 5309 bus discretionary funds for the CAT fixed route system, 
and $6.5 million in Section 5309 new start funds for continued 
preliminary engineering of a fixed guideway system. The RTC genuinely 
appreciates the Federal assistance it has received to date. Together, 
we have built an award winning public transit system in just 5 short 
years. We look forward to continuing to work together on these 
important projects.
                                 ______
                                 

    Prepared Statement of Diana Degette, U.S. Representative, First 
               Congressional District, State of Colorado

    Chairman Wolf and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Diana 
Degette, U.S. Representative from the First Congressional District from 
the State of Colorado. I am here today on behalf of the Denver Regional 
Transportation District--RTD. I appreciate this opportunity to inform 
you of our progress in constructing the next light rail corridor in the 
Denver region--the southwest corridor. I wish to thank the subcommittee 
for their support of our 1998 request. At this time, I would like to 
request your further assistance in obtaining a fiscal year 1999 
appropriation of $60 million to keep our project on schedule.
    RTD provides public transit service to over 2 million residents of 
the six counties and 37 municipalities in our 2,400 square mile 
district--one of the largest transit districts in the nation. Our fleet 
of 868 buses and 17 light rail vehicles carried over 71 million 
passengers in 1997, our eleventh consecutive year of increased 
ridership.
    In 1994, RTD completed its first light rail project, the central 
corridor on time and within budget. The 5.3 mile central corridor light 
rail has exceeded our original projections of 14,000 riders per day. We 
are now carrying 15,000 riders per day. This light rail line which cost 
$130 million was financed totally with RTD local funds.
    Mr. Chairman, RTD is continuing its progress in developing rapid 
transit by extending the construction of light rail from our present 
central corridor light rail line to the southwest corridor. The 8.7 
mile southwest light rail extension will serve three major activity 
centers: the Denver central business district, a major regional retail 
and commercial center in Englewood currently under major redevelopment 
and the Littleton central business district. This project will also 
provide service to the residents of Douglas County--the fastest growing 
county in Colorado and one of the fastest growing counties in the 
United States.
    In its first year of operation, the southwest light rail transit 
project is projected to provide its passengers with a 56 percent travel 
time savings as compared to the same trip by automobile. By 2015, this 
light rail project is expected to cut auto travel time in half, saving 
its 22,000 passengers over 25 minutes per trip. The value of this 
travel time savings is expected to reach over $9.5 million annually by 
the year 2015. In addition, the southwest corridor light rail project 
allows RTD to operate more efficiently. By the year 2015, RTD can 
provide this light rail service at $2.60 per passenger trip compared to 
a similar trip by bus that would cost $3.10--a 19 percent savings per 
rider. Additionally, RTD estimates that the cost per new rider, as per 
FTA guidelines, is $3.23; a very favorable figure.
    In acknowledgment of the important benefits to be derived from this 
project, the Federal Transit Administration and RTD, entered into a 
full funding grant agreement in 1996 in the amount of $177 million. The 
full funding grant agreement provides $120 million in new start federal 
funds. The balance of project funding is provided by RTD local funds in 
the amount of $38.5 million and with $18 million from flexible federal 
funds contributed by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the 
Denver Regional Council of Governments--our region's MPO. It is to be 
noted that this is the first major project in the State of Colorado 
where flexible federal funds, as allowed by ISTEA, were provided to 
transit.
    Construction started on the southwest corridor light rail project 
in January of 1997. Included in the written testimony submitted are 
pictures of actual construction activity as well as a map, fact sheet 
and other pertinent information.
    I am pleased to inform you today that the southwest corridor light 
rail project is within budget and on schedule. RTD has obligated and 
accrued $123.2 million or 70 percent of the total cost of this project. 
Of this amount, RTD has received only $25.8 million in federal new 
start funding. In order to keep this project on schedule, RTD has not 
only committed all their match funds of $38.5 million but has advanced 
this project another $52.9 million. This is truly a good faith effort 
on the part of RTD in keeping this project moving forward and on 
schedule for an opening date of July 2000.
    RTD's request for $60 million takes into account the $40 million 
programmed in the full funding grant agreement for fiscal year 1999 
plus the previous years funding shortfall of approximately $8 million. 
According to the full funding grant agreement, RTD was to receive a 
total of $33 million by this time in the project's schedule. To date, 
only $25 million was received. The $60 million also includes an 
additional $12 million--funds that were scheduled for the year 2001 as 
part of the full funding grant agreement. This money is needed now to 
meet fiscal year 1999 contractual obligations and expenditures.
    In summary, this request reflects the reality that the southwest 
corridor is scheduled to be opened in July of the year 2000. Without a 
significant fiscal year 1999 appropriation, it will be difficult for 
RTD to keep the construction of this project on budget and within the 
schedule. As we all know, delays in project construction translate to 
increased project costs and lost revenues. Therefore, in order to keep 
this project on track, RTD will need a fiscal year 1999 appropriation 
of $60 million.
    In addition to RTD's commitment to keep this project moving 
forward, the southwest corridor project also enjoys support from 
community groups, local businesses and the residents of the southwest 
rapid transit corridor area. This project continues to receive broad-
based support from the metro area's elected officials. Letters of 
support are included in our written testimony.
    In conclusion, RTD is well underway with the construction of the 
southwest corridor light rail project. RTD has demonstrated a strong 
commitment to keep this project on schedule by advancing its own local 
funds. RTD has a proven record of accomplishment through its efficient 
handling of the construction of its central corridor line. The project, 
itself, responds to the principles of fiscal responsibility, technical 
merit, and has the active support of state and local governments as 
well as the absolute support of the community it serves.
    The southwest corridor light rail project is vital to our region's 
ability to meet the challenges of rapid growth.
    We are seeking your support for our fiscal year 1999 appropriation 
request of $60 million for this important project.
    Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee and for 
your consideration of our request.


       LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Aderholt, Hon. Robert, U.S. Representative from Alabama..........     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Air Traffic Control Association, Inc., prepared statement........   859
Allen, W. Ron, president, National Congress of American Indians, 
  prepared statement.............................................   904
American Association of Airport Executives and Airports Council 
  International--North America, prepared statement...............   864
Austin, Julie M., executive director, Foothill Transit, West 
  Covina, CA, prepared statement.................................   940

Bachus, Hon. Spencer, U.S. Representative from Alabama...........     1
Barclay, Charles, American Association of Airport Executives, et 
  al., letter from...............................................   866
Barnes, Master Chief Joe, USN (retired), director, legislative 
  programs, Fleet Reserve Association............................   878
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from Montana......................   211
Becker, Capt. Fred R., Jr., JAGC, USN (ret.), director, naval 
  affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United States, 
  prepared statement.............................................   892
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., U.S. Senator from Delaware................   204
    Prepared statement...........................................   209
Brown, Kirk, secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation, 
  prepared statement.............................................   924
Buechner, William, director, economics and research, American 
  Road and Transportation Builders Association...................    25
    Prepared statement...........................................    29
Burke, Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite, county of Los Angeles, first 
  vice chair, board of directors, Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
  Transportation Authority, prepared statement...................   949

Capon, Ross B., executive director, National Association of 
  Railroad Passengers, prepared statement........................   321
Carney, Michael, chairman, Association of Waste Hazardous 
  Materials Transporters, prepared statement.....................   915
Cebula, Andrew V., vice president, National Transportation 
  Association, prepared statement................................   929
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement..........   922
Colins, Father T. Byron, S.M., special assistant to the 
  president, Georgetown University, prepared statement...........   944
Copeland, Barry, vice chairman, governmental affairs, Birmingham 
  Area Chamber of Commerce.......................................    25
    Letter from..................................................    54
    Prepared statement...........................................    47

Degette, Diana, U.S. Representative, First Congressional 
  District, State of Colorado, prepared statement................   982
Dickinson, Elaine, assistant vice president, government affairs, 
  Boat Owners Association of the U.S., prepared statement........   930

Filgo, J. Frank, president, Alabama Trucking Association.........    25
Foote, Stephanie, chief of staff, Office of Mayor Wellington 
  Webb, Denver, CO, prepared statement...........................   867
Garvey, Hon. Jane F., Administrator, Federal Aviation 
  Administration.................................................    99
    Prepared statement...........................................   102
George, Father William L., S.J., special assistant to the 
  president, Georgetown University, prepared statement...........   944
Gibbs, Al, director, corporate affairs, AAA-Alabama..............    25
    Prepared statement...........................................    51
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, prepared statement...........   870
Gropper, Donna, manager, Orlando International ATC Tower, 
  memorandum from................................................   876

Harris, Harry, chairman, I-95 Corridor Coalition, Executive 
  Board, deputy commissioner, Connecticut Department of 
  Transportation, prepared statement.............................   901

Indianapolis Northeast Corridor Project, prepared statement......   948
International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations, 
  prepared statement.............................................   926
Interstate Gas Association of America, prepared statement........   920

Jensen, Frank L., Jr., president, Helicopter Association 
  International, prepared statement..............................   927
Jones, Beverly, member of the board of directors, National Easter 
  Seal Society, prepared statement...............................   965
Judge, Patrick R., president, Louisiana Public Transit 
  Association, prepared statement................................   951

Kenny, Michael P., executive officer, California Air Resources 
  Board, et al., prepared statement..............................   897
Kiley, Robert, president, New York City Partnership..............   251
Kramek, Adm. Robert E., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.............    99
    Prepared statement...........................................   105

Ladd, Jeffrey R., chairman, Metra Commuter Rail..................   285
    Prepared statement...........................................   288
Lansing, Scott, executive director, Chatham Area Transit 
  Authority, prepared statement..................................   936
Lew, Hon. Jack, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget.   303
    Prepared statement...........................................   305

Maull, Perry J., transit director, city of Gainesville, FL, 
  Regional Transit System, prepared statement....................   944
McLaughlin, Commissioner Peter, vice chair, Hennepin County 
  Regional Railroad Authority, and chair, Twin Cities 
  Metropolitan LRT Joint Powers Board, prepared statement........   945
Mead, Kenneth, M., Inspector General, Office of Inspector 
  General, Department of Transportation..........................   217
    Prepared statement...........................................   229
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, prepared statement.   956
Millar, William W., president, American Public Transit 
  Association, prepared statement................................   931
Molitoris, Jolene M., Administrator, Federal Railroad 
  Administration, letter from....................................   566

Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, prepared statement....   975

Ogrodzinski, Henry M., president and CEO, National Association of 
  State Aviation Officials, prepared statement...................   928
Ouellette, Sgt. Maj. Michael F., USA (ret.), director of 
  legislative affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association of 
  the United States of America, prepared statement...............   887

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, prepared statement.............   905
Poole, Robert W., Jr., president, the Reason Foundation..........   264
    Prepared statement...........................................   281

Regional Transportation Commission, Clark County, NV, prepared 
  state- 
  ment...........................................................   978
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, prepared statement...   213
Rendell, Ed., mayor, Philadelphia, PA............................   297
RePass, James P., president and chief executive officer, National 
  Corridors Initiative, prepared statement.......................   914
Roth, G. Linn, chairman, Committee for a Balanced Radionavigation 
  Policy, International Loran Association, prepared statement....   910
Roth, Hon. William V., U.S. Senator from Delaware................   197

Sanders, David G., Acting Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway 
  Development Corporation, prepared statement....................   802
Scheinberg, Phyllis F., Associate Director, Transportation 
  Issues, Resources, Community and Economic Development Division, 
  General Accounting Office......................................   217
    Prepared statement...........................................   220
Shackelford, Hon. Wayne, commissioner, Georgia Department of 
  Transportation, prepared statement.............................   881
Shelby, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama, prepared 
  statement......................................................   198
Shippers, Container Manufacturers and Transporters, prepared 
  statement......................................................   919
Siegel, John H., M.D., F.A.C.S., F.C.C.M., Wesley J. Howe 
  Professor of Trauma Surgery, chairman, Department of Anatomy, 
  Cell Biology and Injury Sciences, New Jersey Medical School, 
  University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared 
  statement......................................................   908
Skoutelas, Paul P., executive director, Port Authority of 
  Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement...........   977
Slater, Hon. Rodney E., Secretary of Transportation..............    57
    Prepared statement...........................................    74
Smith, Vice Mayor Jose, city of Miami Beach, FL, prepared 
  statement......................................................   964
Stanton, Norma, Dallas Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors, 
  prepared statement.............................................   937
Steenburg, Jack Van, president, Commercial Vehicle Safety 
  Alliance, prepared statement...................................   900

Tillotson, F. Lee, senior director for planning and special 
  projects, Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, letter from......   871
Tucker, Robert H., Jr., chairman, Regional Transit Authority of 
  New Orleans, prepared statement................................   967

Vaughn, Don, assistant transportation director, Alabama 
  Department of Transportation...................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    22

White, Jesse L., Jr., Federal cochairman, Appalachian Regional 
  Commission.....................................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Woolley, Ted, president, National Association of State Boating 
  Law Administrators, prepared statement.........................   885


                             SUBJECT INDEX

                              ----------                              

            AMTRAK'S FUTURE AND PASSENGER RAIL ALTERNATIVES

                                                                   Page
America's passenger rail, a new vision for.......................   254
Amtrak:
    Alternatives to..............................................   295
    Commuter's dependence on.....................................   200
    5-year plan..................................................   301
    Funding......................................................   305
    Importance.................................................204, 208
    Is not funded enough.........................................   206
    Not efficient................................................   197
    Not self-sufficient..........................................   237
    Paying for...................................................   300
    Problems without.............................................   216
    Ridership....................................................   240
    Successor to.................................................   280
Assessment, need for.............................................   235
Capital funds, flexibility of....................................   303
Capital investment, method for...................................   252
Capitalization, benefits of......................................   297
Financial deterioration, reason for..............................   234
Funding, flexibility of..........................................   307
Future self-sufficiency a myth...................................   308
Material submitted subsequent to conclusion of hearing...........   321
Metra's success..................................................   287
Metra, comparisons with..........................................   286
Operating and capital subsidies, use of..........................   292
Other transportation modes.......................................   304
Passenger rail alternatives......................................   253
Positive effects of funding......................................   299
Privatization:
    Feasibility of...............................................   293
    Forms of.....................................................   279
    Problems with................................................   298
Privatized Amtrak, structure of..................................   293
Railroad competition today.......................................   296
Railroad privatization, worldwide examples of....................   278
Replacing Amtrak: A Blueprint for Sustainable Passenger Rail 
  Service........................................................   265
Routes, failure of...............................................   243
Submitted questions:
    General Accounting Office....................................   244
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation [Amtrak].............   310
    Office of Inspector General..................................   249
    Office of Management and Budget..............................   308
Subsidizing properly.............................................   237
TRA and reform act necessary.....................................   201

                     APPALACHIAN REGIONAL CORRIDORS

ARC, favorable outlook for.......................................    20
Economic development, infrastructure importance to...............    10
Economic importance of highways to State prosperity..............    35
Highways, State economic dependence on...........................    33
In-State versus out-of-State highways, State dependence on.......    38
Material submitted subsequent to conclusion of hearing...........    53
National highway dependence, an index of.........................    41
Opening remarks..................................................     1
Preserving the national highway system...........................    44
Threat to the Nation's highway system............................    35
Transportation projects, importance of...........................    23
Truck transportation, State economic dependence on...............    36
Witnesses, introduction of.......................................    25

           DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAJOR FUNDING ISSUES

Air traffic control equipment....................................   115
Air traffic modernization........................................   116
Airport delays...................................................   113
Airport Improvement Program......................................   114
Appalachian Highway System.......................................    62
Coast Guard recruiting...........................................   119
Controller pay...................................................   112
Dauphin Island, Coast Guard facilities at........................   108
Deepwater project................................................   109
DOT strategic plan...............................................    73
Drug interdiction funding........................................   116
Drunk driving....................................................    66
Emergency Relief Highway Program.................................    80
Emergency supplemental appropriations bill.......................   107
Federal Express Mid-Atlantic hub.................................   116
Funding:
    Challenges...................................................    58
    Priorities...................................................    57
Gatwick Airport, landing slots at................................    84
Highway safety, public information on............................    84
Highways and transit balance.....................................    83
I-15.............................................................    66
Increased speed limits...........................................    82
Infrastructure investment........................................59, 61
Investment balance...............................................    60
ISTEA reauthorization, support for...............................    70
Lake Tahoe.......................................................    66
Motor carrier safety.............................................    67
National airspace modernization..................................   100
NHTSA subpoenas, enforcement of..................................    80
Oceanic systems..................................................   111
Olympics, infrastructure for.....................................    68
Passenger rail...................................................    67
President's budget...............................................   101
Safety...........................................................    99
Salt Lake City, second airport surveillance radar for............   118
Security.........................................................   100
Standard terminal automation replacement system [STARS]..........   108
STEA authorization, expiration of................................    79
Submitted questions:
    Federal Aviation Administration..............................   120
    Office of the Secretary......................................    89
    U.S. Coast Guard.............................................   168
Surface transportation bill......................................    62
Surface Transportation Board.....................................    67
System efficiency................................................   100
Transportation investment........................................    73
Trucks, inspection stickers for..................................    85
User fees........................................................71, 81
Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].............................   109
Year 2000 [Y2K]..................................................   101
    Management responsibility for................................   117
    Problems.....................................................    86

                                   - 
